filmstockade

To Mr. David Lynch:

2010-11-17T10:43:00.001-08:00

I have now seen a vast majority of your feature films, save for Dune, Inland Empire, and Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me. Last night, I watched The Straight Story, and I must say, it is your strangest film I've seen. And I'm even including your incredibly creepy shorts, most of which, I have seen. My introduction to your work was The Elephant Man, a highly uncharacteristic film in comparison to your other features. It's a great film, and I supremely enjoyed it, but it didn't really put you yourself on my radar.

It would be the notorious film Eraserhead that would put you on the map in my mind, its surrealistic legend filling my mind with mystery before even having seen the mindfuck classic. I was confused, and I hated the film as much as I loved it. Never before had I seen something so avant-garde, and it was a fresh experience, one to which I had to become acclimated.

It wasn't too long before I went onto other movies: Lost Highway was great, Blue Velvet an instant favorite, Wild at Hear was weird but interesting, and Mulholland Drive just confused me more. I came to understand your methods, and it worked for you, as well as for me; I'm quite the fan of unconventional films.

But last night, a funny thing happened. I watched your film The Straight Story and it was one of the freakiest things I've ever seen. Its normalcy for a film with your name on it was more surreal than Dennis Hopper's raving madness ever could have been. The performances drawn out of the actors in this film was similar to what you'd expect non-actors to do, but it was just a hairline off of reality. The film's story of a man travelling across Iowa on a lawnmower was so bizarrely normal that it was off-putting and sickening, his personal narrative a harrowing tale all the while. The fact that I picked up on certain motifs was all the more bewildering when considering that you had directed this PG-rated Disney film. That Alvin Straight's story is true is all the more fascinating, and that his name is so right for the title works all the better.

Mr. Lynch, I'm surprised at you, but that's a good thing. Mr. Lynch, I'm glad you can do things differently and mix it up in your career, and I'm proud to say that I've seen so many of your films. I look forward to finishing the rest of your filmography, as well as any future productions of yours. Thanks.

All the best,

Emerson D'Artagnan Sigman

D.W. Griffith's The Movies 100 Years From Now

2010-11-16T13:00:00.000-08:00

The director of Birth of a Nation could never have seen the digital revolution coming, nor could he have foretold the importance of sound in the motion picture. D.W. Griffith fails in these two things and these two things alone in his telling of where films are headed for 2024 in his article written in 1924. Griffith accurately depicts today's film industry as compared to that of his own time. Through his paper, he insists that color film will overtake black and white, in a process more refined than the tinting or use of special lenses: using actual color film. Griffith also predicts 3D cinema becoming a trend, perfectly reasonable a prediction since 3D film had been a possibility since the late 1890's. Color film too was possible since a time before, with Prizmacolor and other similar systems. But what is most impressive about Griffith's predictions is his foresight as to the scale of application of such systems. Griffith also states that he believes movies will be able to be screened on cross-country plane rides and within homes, a very bold statement at the time.

Regarding the actual movie theater, Griffith relates the fact that the screen will probably no longer be square in the future, and that movie will cost no less than $5, an absurdity at the time. Some of Griffith's claims are outlandish by today's standards. While the temperature and quality of lights in motion pictures has bettered, I'm sure, lights are by no means cold. Yet. There's still some time before 2024. Griffith also states that music will be equally instrumental to films as the pictures, but that we will never hear a person's voice on the screen. The director is very adamant about this point, but it is more that he allows his personal preferences to get in the way. He states that he can't even know where music will be, but on film, he has some guesses. He also makes the prediction that Hollywood will not be the center of filmmaking, and that it will instead be more scattered, particularly just outside of New York. On this, he is partially right, as a multitude of films are made internationally, but Hollywood is still basically regarded as the capital of cinema.

Griffith's most important point, which is the main reason behind my writing this, is his opinion of what cinema will do for society and the world by 2024. Griffith truly believed in 1924 that film would answer the world's problems, that cinema would end wars. For that, I commend the man in his noble prediction. It is for that reason that I am all the more thrilled to become a filmmaker. Because I want to unite the world's people over images. I'm not one to care all that much about social issues, but the ability to create film that evocative would be a real treat. It is for this reason that I accept Griffith's challenge of sorts; I'm going to try to bring an end to all armed conflict by 2024, and I'm going to do it by making films. Because I believe as Mr. Griffith did that this medium has that sort of power.

Emerson

My Week in Film: 7/18/10-7/24/10

2010-07-26T13:04:00.000-07:00

I made this post entirely and for some reason it didn't get posted, so I'm rewritting only what I feel is important: my theories of Inception. I also saw Hard Candy and offer up that it was only good with the cinematography and some of the acting, so it can be skipped, as it is incredibly predictable.

I originally also had a review of Inception, but that feels too hard to redo, so I'll just say its a must-see and if you haven't yet, you're missing out. Now come my three primary theories of Inception, two of which I believe are very possible, and the third of which is a crockpot theory that is batshit crazy, but I secretly love. If you have not seen the film, there are potential spoilers within, so continue only if you've had the privilege of seeing Christopher Nolan's modern mindfuck masterpiece.

Now, the obvious theories diverge between whether Dom Cobb is in a dream at the end or not, but my theories go beyond that and I mostly lean towards it being a dream, but with different details surrounding this fact.

I have also collected certain pieces of evidence that I cannot quite place into any particular theory, so I will present them here: the name Mal means evil or bad, meaning DiCaprio's projection of his subconscious through his wife is diabolical. It was also presented to me by a friend (kudos to you Alex) that the mark, Cillian Murphy's character, is named Robert Fischer, Jr. Now Alex figured out that Robert Fischer is basically like Bobby Fisher, the chess player, and so he posited to me that the film is a game of chess. I have further deduced that there is further significance to his name, particularly the 'Jr.' part, as his father is named Maurice Fischer. Who, therefore, is he named for? If you have comments on this evidence, or on my theories, feel free to chime in.

Another character is the architect of Dom's dream for the entire film or a large majority of it. This theory divides between two characters, either Saito or Ariadne is the architect of Cobb's dreams and have some motivation to enter his dreams and try to pull off inception within Cobb. If Saito is this architect, he is pulling a variant of the Mr. Charles, one in which he convinces Dom that he can get him back to his family. Eames mentions that inception just takes a simple suggestion, and that's all Saito makes out the possibility of Dom returning home to be. At the film's ending in which Saito is an old man in limbo, there is no reveal as to what happens after he lifts the gun, and they suddenly end up at the airplane again. And that's the thing about dreams as Nolan portrays them, you just show up places without knowing how you got there. The other possible architect is Ariadne, a figure who Cobb gets close to and lets into the deepest parts of his subconscious. It has been presented to me that Ariadne is possibly his psychiatrist, trying to cure him via inception and bringing him to believe that he can get back to his family and get rid of Mal. Each of these theories are not my own and you can read more about them here at points 3 and 4. These are my favorite theories that are not my own.
Inception is all a dream of Nolan's or of the audience. Let's face it, Dom Cobb looks a lot like Christopher Nolan. Maybe the film is some sort of semi-autobiographical film that Nolan made up as a representation of his own dreams. But that isn't my foremost theory. My absolute favorite is that the film itself is our dream. We must question and bend our own reality to accept this, so bear with me. Did we ever know anything about inception even as a concept before having seen the film? No, as it was Nolan's original idea. And isn't that what inception is, the mere suggestion of an original idea, one that is simple enough at first and gains complexity. Nolan is trying to pull off inception in our minds, the viewers, to convince us that inception is real. Just as the characters must gain complexity in the idea as they deepen the dream layer, so does Nolan further the complexity of inception as a concept as the film goes on. First, Nolan has his characters tell us what inception is, then he uses his characters to tell us that inception is possible. Soon after, we find out it has actually been done, and finally, we are able to watch it in action, being performed. Through this plot progression of the concept, Nolan introduces us to inception and eventually immerses us in a world in which inception is believable, albeit complex. We as the audience must accept that Nolan has created a sort of collective subconscious for all viewers to bask in and partake. That's what Inception is about, subtle suggestions and the subconscious. This honestly wasn't as good of an explanation as the original post, but I think I've gotten my point across.
Inception is a prequel for The Matrix trilogy. It makes little sense, and the connections are thin, but I like to simply suggest it and pull off my own inception within your minds. Morpheus, after all, is the name of the Greek god of dreams. And lets not forget The Matrix's own Architect, a character who created the entire matrix. As such, it could be stretched that this architect pulled off the ability of sending the entire world into believing his own inception save for the rebel groups of the City of Zion. After all, both the Matrix film and Nolan's work are made by Warner Bros. And lets not forget that both The Matrix and Inception have a scene in which an elevator is disconnected from its holding with an explosion. Deja vu? I'd call that a glitch in the matrix.

Well that does it for my insane rantings on an even crazier film. It demands to be seen again, but until then, I'd love for people to discuss their own thoughts on my theories or reveal your own personal theories to me.

Emerson

Riddle Me This: Who Could Play Edward Nigma?

2010-07-20T23:46:00.001-07:00

Director Christopher Nolan is legendary already for his mind bending features. Inception is the latest entry into the filmmaker's expanding universe, but he is perhaps best known for the recent Batman films, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Nolan also has a policy of not talking about his next film until the last one is completely done, so with Inception finally being released, rumors abound the internet over who the villain would be in what may be the conclusion to Nolan's Batman trilogy.

Film news site firstshowing.net reports that through a casting grid the villain (or one of the villains) will be the Riddler. It also indicates that actor Joseph Gordon Levitt, fresh off of the tails of Inception himself, is 'interested' in the role. This all means that the Riddler is more than likely the villain, but JGL is questionable. And while I certainly prefer him to rumors of the overrated Johnny Depp, I believe that there are many more suitable actors for the iconic villain, depending upon how Nolan has written the character of course. Here are several actors that could do great with the role:

7) William Fichtner. Remember the epic opening to Nolan's The Dark Knight? The bank manager in this scene has a gas grenade placed in his mouth and is offered the following line by Heath Ledger's Joker: "What doesn't kill you makes you stranger." This could lead into writing so meta, it flips the audiences out of their mind. Batman's most cunning foe is created by his greatest foe. And with that, an origin story is already taken care of, and Fichtner is a great actor, obviously already worthy of being in a Nolan film.

6) Sam Rockwell. He plays 'completely off his rocker' rather well, but can also pull off intelligent and menacing. Rockwell is a big up and coming name, but not too big that he'd be bigger than the role. The only problem with Rockwell is that he was just in Iron Man 2, and I am no fan of these superhero studios sharing stars. But Rockwell would do the role well.

5) Christian Slater. The wild card of my bunch, but I'm glad to have him, albeit for the worst reasons. Slater is offputting, awkward, and hasn't been in anything noteworthy in years besides a failed television show on NBC and some straight to DVD features. But Slater is an interesting guy, and an actor who could really benefit from Nolan's direction. Nolan has made actors with less than positive reputations seem near Shakespearean, so why not Slater? The guy really deserves a comeback, and his disturbed role in the mindfuck movie He Was a Quiet Man doesn't look or sound like the Slater we know at all. This is a man who can act, but just needs the right director and character. The Riddler may be that role for him.

4) Daniel Day Lewis. The single most transformative actor there is. Possibly the only man we have who could "outdo" Ledger in his ability to really convince us that he is the villain, rather than just playing one. For more, see the best villain of the last decade, Daniel Plainview, in Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood.

3) Looking at Nolan's past Batman villains, I realized that he never cast an actor who he had previously cast before. This narrows the chances for JGL, but I'd like to point out an astounding, underrated earlier actor whom Nolan employed for Memento. Guy Pearce. Pearce and Nolan have a working history, but also in a mind bending thriller in which Pearce played a dark figure on a mission for vengeance. Although this does not fit into the usual billing of the Riddler, Pearce simply is a great actor who understands the complexity of the mind when approaching his craft.

2) Casey Affleck. Having only really seen The Killer Inside Me, I firmly believe Affleck not only has the acting chops to rise to the occasion to play the Riddler, but rather could elevate the character to new levels, and unexpectedly so, much as Heath Ledger did for the Joker.

1) Tom Hardy. An actor who actually performed better than JGL in Inception, Hardy would also be completely out of left field, as he is practically a nobody to most. However, much like recently cast Spiderman, Andrew Garfield, Hardy already has some hefty roles to his name, particularly the role of Charles Bronson in the biopic Bronson, a tale of England's most prolific prisoner. The role of Bronson shows Hardy's true depth of insanity, and also his flexibility as an actor. Although he is more the bulky type, rather than the lean Riddler we have come to know, Hardy would offer another dimension in that sense and alter our perception of a classic character by making himself just as much the Riddler as the Riddler would become Tom Hardy.

Bonus: Christian Bale. How big of a mindfuck would Nolan give us if the same guy who played Batman and Bruce Wayne also played The Riddler and Edward Nigma. Now that would be a twist.

Emerson

My Week in Film: 7/11/10-7/17/10

2010-07-18T11:13:00.000-07:00

Welcome My Week in Filmers, members of the filmstockade to right smack in the middle of the summer. It's been one week since we last met, as always, and I present a new five fabulous feature films for your pleasure: Das Schloss (The Castle), Funny Games, La Pianiste (The Piano Teacher), MASH, and Nashville. The first three films are by Austrian great Michael Haneke, and the latter two are by American classic ensemble director Robert Altman. And with that, we begin our excursion into my previous week in all things cinema. Welcome to the filmstockade.

Michael Haneke is a director who I have come to understand more and more since my introduction to him with Funny Games U.S. He treats the audience as a character, and rather than inviting the audience to enjoy the viewing experience, Haneke hates his viewer and treats the audience as what a fellow film academic termed a "cinematic bully." Haneke is therefore known for his arduously long takes, his maddening attention to the shot through normal cinematographer Christian Berger, and his writing which condemns all; not just characters, but the audience as well. His feature Das Schloss, or The Castle in English, is an adaptation of an unfinished Franz Kafka work. As such, it is purposefully unintelligible, impossible to decipher any true plot from, and mostly devoid of any substantive action. In these senses, The Castle is subordinate work, particularly compared to the much better Kafka by Steven Soderbergh. The Castle has no thematic worth besides that found in the usual Kafka work, and as such it comes off as generic for the author. It only holds value in that it seems to be the most accurate cinematic adaptation of the isolationist author's work. In this, there is only real value for fans of the Metamorphosis's author. The Castle is all too typical of a Kafka work and viewers seeking something new and different should rush to see Soderbergh's Kafka instead.

Funny Games is an incredibly fascinating study. The film tells the tale of a wealthy family who is held hostage by two enigmatic young men at the family's lake house. What is so interesting about the film is not necessarily this plot, although it admittedly does have quite a bit of interesting pull, but rather the way in which the story is told. The blood thirsty boys break the fourth wall, inviting the viewer into their menacingly violent world. But Haneke is not all that violent and does not take the great pleasure in violence that a director like Quentin Tarantino would, but rather he finds it deplorable and wishes the viewers to be disgusted at it. Haneke also makes certain to allow specific characters privacy as they are subjected to violent acts, and in this, Haneke creates a certain rapport with the audience. But the tale is harrowingly horrifying, and yet frustrating, containing one of the longest, most still shots I can recall in a great long time. It is truly a work of art, in the sense that this auteur is able to stretch the bounds of film and allow the viewer to participate so actively in a film, while also taking it in with is near perfect editing. Also of note is the performance of Haneke regular Susanne Lothar, rising to the occasion of an exponentially demanding role. She is a great actress, and it really is a shame that audiences are not more aware of her work. The cultural trivia surrounding Funny Games is probably the best known fact about the film, as it was made shot for shot by Haneke himself in a 2007 film of the same name staring Tim Roth and Naomi Watts. Roth admittedly does better than the male lead in the Austrian remake, but it is Lothar's acting alone which helps to make the original the better of the two films. And it is interesting to behold to films which are so identical, as watching them side by side would probably reveal great exactitude in the shot lengths and composition of the two. Although I saw Funny Games U.S. first, I enjoyed the original more and would recommend others to check out this credit to Austrian cinema before rushing to the American remake. Both are good, but the original gets the edge.

My third and final Haneke film of the week was La Pianiste, or The Piano Teacher. The feature follows the life of an increasingly masochistic piano teacher who takes on a male student with whom she begins to have intimate relations. The film can count itself among many other disturbing sexual films, ranging from the high class madness that is Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, to the dark, mechanical depression of David Cronenberg's Crash. The Piano Teacher fits in between these sexually pervasive gradings where high class meets hyper-fetishism. In that sense, it is a very blunt film, whose sudden, inexplicable ending can be likened in some ways to Haneke's The Castle. The Piano Teacher also offers up interesting perspectives into the root of evil, something the director previously explored briefly in 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance, and would later make an entire film about with last year's Cannes film festival winner Das Weisse Band, or The White Ribbon. Haneke is a filmmaker who I love to hate and hate to love, who stretches the boundaries of the relationships between the audience and the filmmaker, and is someone from whom a future filmmaker can gain much inspiration.

Robert Altman's MASH would go onto be a television classic. But before that, it was a feature length film following medics stationed in Korea during the Korean War. And with big names like Robert Duvall and Donald Sutherland, it's sure to be great fun. The problem with MASH, is that there is virtually no plot until the final half hour of the feature, just playing out much like a television show that ends up not getting picked up for network. Its characters are fun, but they end up not doing to much more than having brief, zany exploits. There are minute moments of clarity, in which Altman seems to be striving to say something important, but it is a total directorial mess which does not stand up today. It was a reasonable effort, however, considering it was Altman's first major motion picture. This one is more for fans of the show or those looking to know more about filmmaker Robert Altman, an admitted legend of the silver screen.

It is Altman's Nashville that is considered possibly his most notable and ambitious work, a vast ensemble piece covering events leading up to a politically backed concert in the music epicenter of the nation. While it again, much like MASH, tries to be off the wall and comic, failing miserably for the most part, and also fails to create a plot between the supposedly interwoven characters until the feature's final scene, it is most definitely an improvement over his earlier endeavor. Nashville is worth the two hour and forty minute runtime just to get all the way through to its beautifully conceived climax. The rising action is suddenly held up anew by the movie's great ending, and it also returns to earlier ideals which were expressed seemingly subtly by the characters, mentioned only in passing. I enjoyed Nashville, and the acting was quite good too. But the director's much later ensemble picture, the only other Altman film I've seen so far, Gosford Park, is a much better work. Altman is a good filmmaker, but there are still many more films in his oeuvre to view before I'd even dare consider him great.

And, as always, some of the more enjoyable trailers I saw this week:

Devil - Although based on a short story by M. Night Shyamalan, Devil looks promising because I can't resist fiction based around religious ideals, although not religious myself. Biblical works and characters can be great inspiration, so we'll see what Shyamalan can do in what reminds me of a feature version of Vincenzo Natali's short film, Elevated. View the trailer here.

It's Kind of a Funny Story - A comedy about folks in a mental hospital hasn't really come across my path. Sure One Flew Over can be both funny and endearing, but I'd chalk it up to drama. It's Kind of a Funny Story seems to blend the coming of age comedy with the mental hospital feature, and with Zach Galifianakis as one of the crazies, I can't pass this one up. View the trailer here.

The Social Network - Finally, David Fincher has released a trailer with actual film footage. And now I can say quite firmly that this looks like a film to beat this Fall season, with what appear to be great performances all around in a gripping drama that looks nearly like a thriller its so edgy. View the trailer here.

Thanks for catching up with me. If you have comments, feel free to address me. And feel free to follow. I'll be back next week, as always.

Emerson

The Man Who Could Kill Marvel

2010-07-11T16:00:00.000-07:00

We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks.

So goes an announcement by Marvel Studios following months of tension surrounding whether Academy Award nominated actor Edward Norton would reprise his role as iconic Marvel superhero The Incredible Hulk in their culmination of five films, The Avengers. Following the success of Iron Man, it was obvious that an Avengers film was on the horizon. Then came the Louis Leterrier directed film The Incredible Hulk. The film, made for $150 million, did not meet studio expectations, grossing a supposedly meager $263,427,551 worldwide. Edward Norton starred as the eponymous angry green giant and added to the film for sure, particularly when paired off against the great Tim Roth. Now, compared to Iron Man's $140 million budget and $585,133,287 worldwide take, Hulk got smaller numbers, but Iron Man was a bit of a fluke. Directed by Jon Favreau, Iron Man tells the tale of Tony Stark, a billionaire who gets kidnapped and requires a power core to stay alive. This of course endows him with superhuman abilities, and so the story has him fighting bad guys. They're good movies, sure, but the style in which they were made was to get them made by a release date, not to have them done with a certain quality. This lent itself to more freedom for the actors, Robert Downey Jr., Terrance Howard, Jeff Bridges, and Gwyneth Paltrow, to improvise. And so Marvel gave the stars and director of Iron Man much freedom in their various roles. But The Incredible Hulk had a different development process, with Edward Norton being unhappy with the script and not being able to do too much about it. Although he did have a heavy hand in the script, he was not allowed to receive credit for it because of WGA rules. And so, the studio had a negative relationship with Norton, despite his talent and what he brought to the table.

Then a funny thing happened. For Iron Man 2, Terrance Howard was replaced by Don Cheadle. Most of the world didn't notice too much, but Howard was shocked at first and had no idea why. Marvel claimed that he wanted even more money than RDJ for the sequel, but something still didn't add up. Still, the move was compared in some ways to the replacement of Rachel Dawes as insignificant, with the recasting being of a supporting role.

Fast forward to present day. Iron Man 2 has been made for quite a bit more, but has also raked in quite a bit more. On top of that, the continuity is coming together for The Avengers. Thor and Captain America are being filmed as we speak. Fanboy favorite Joss Whedon is rumored heavily to be the director of The Avengers and even has a conversation recently with Edward Norton. Norton apparently had interest in the role, and both he and Whedon were enthusiastic about doing the film together.

And now comes news that Norton has basically been fired from the role of the Hulk. And not for financial reasons like Terrance Howard, but because they don't think he'd fit in the ensemble. Edward Norton, an actor with just as many Oscar nominations as RDJ. Edward Norton, an actor who usually plays the lead, but shares it well with other fine actors. It's a shame too, since Marvel's whole plan was for continuity, and here they go breaking it. And now they'd rather cast an unknown than a two time Oscar nominated performer. Who is Marvel going to cast anyway, some bulky wrestler who they can just paint green to save money? Or someone who can play nice and sit back and not get any choices in to be a puppet for the studio. That sounds exactly what getting an unknown would mean for Marvel, so they can have control over some mediocre performer rather than an actor who would bring another dimension to a role. I really pity Marvel studios for their business hypocrisy, and I hope Edward Norton goes onto do some huge film that makes millions more than The Avengers. Maybe he'll get the role of the Flash or Superman at DC.

Emerson

My Week in Film: 7/4/10-7/10/10

2010-07-11T10:25:00.000-07:00

Hello readers once again, and welcome to the fourth edition of Filmstockade's My Week in Film. This edition brings us to about a full month of movie watching, and oh how enjoyable that month has been. Hopefully those of you reading have found some insight within my writing and enjoyed the one month journey as much as I have. And remember, feel free to make comments or address anything you disagree with or agree with, as I love a good conversation about a film. This week's films are: The Killer Inside Me, Palindromes, Restrepo, [REC], [REC] 2, Millennium: The Story, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl who Played with Fire, and Say Anything.

Michael Winterbottom's The Killer Inside Me is an adaptation of a Jim Thompson novel of the same name. Thompson was a crime writer who worked with Stanley Kubrick for the scripts for two of my favorite films: Paths of Glory, The Killing, and the unproduced Kubrick film, the script of which was lost and found only after his death, Lunatic at Large. Kubrick called Thompson's novel The Killer Inside Me as "probably the most chilling and believable first-person story of a criminally warped mind I have ever encountered." And so, Casey Affleck, playing the lead character of Lou Ford, has big shoes to fill. Ford is a sheriff for a small Texas town, ruled by common courtesy and gentlemanly ways. But Ford slowly snaps, and becomes a lawman secretly against law and order, a dynamic force of evil barreling towards a beautifully self-destructive climax. Affleck does a great job as Ford and should even garner some award buzz for his performance, truly allowing the viewer into the "criminally warped mind." The supporting cast does well to support Affleck's journey into depravity, with Kate Hudson, Jessica Alba, Ned Beatty, Simon Baker, Bill Pullman, and underrated favorite of mine Elias Koteas. Each member of the cast seems to be more than just another cog in the gears of the film, but rather a crucial part of a magnificent ensemble. There are not too many recognizable films amongst Winterbottom's works, but The Killer Inside Me offers up a criminally brutal yet perfectly crafted feature, offering wonder through interesting lighting, coloring, and cinematography; powerful editing, both visually and aurally; and the aforementioned killer cast, all acting superbly together and individually. The Killer Inside Me is not for the faint of heart; it is very blunt in its violence and unflinchingly so, but that's the point. The film also features violence against women, but I'd offer up that it is most definitely not a misogynistic film, but rather a film playing with subtlety in that it has a misogynistic main character, testing the audience to realize how awful violence against women really is. I loved the movie, and I believe its one that deserves an audience. See it.

Palindromes. We return, for the last time, to director Todd Solondz. At least until his spiritual sequel to Happiness, Life During Wartime, premieres early next month. Until then, Palindromes is an interestingly bizarre film, although it can be very confusing at first. The film follows Aviva, a girl with a palindromic name as she endures all of the hard stuff teenage girls go through. But Aviva isn't just one girl, as Solondz casts multiple girls (and one boy) to play Aviva at different parts of her journey. Sixteen year old Aviva gets impregnated by a family friend, but wants to keep the baby. Her parents lobby for her to get an abortion, and eventually she caves, but also decides to run away from home after. In this time, she meets a wacky, beyond strange cast of characters. It is a very weird work to behold, and as much as I found it philosophically interesting because of Aviva's metamorphoses, it was all a bit much. There is a certain lack of interest at the point where it is difficult to tell what is going on in a film, and although that was eventually redeemed as the viewer gets used to the ever-altering protagonist, the film suffers for it. I'd only recommend Palindromes to those that can handle a bit more experimental films or those interested in following Solondz's work, because that alone has been rewarding for me. I still look forward to Life During Wartime, but I am waiting with guarded anticipation for what is sure to be yet another weird, perverse movie.

National Geographic is highly regarded for its photographic coverage of the world, giving its readers a view into the world abroad. But recently, National Geographic has introduced a feature film, Restrepo. The film follows the exploits of an American platoon in the most dangerous part of Afghanistan, the Korangal valley, for one year. Restrepo is much better than war movies like The Hurt Locker, but that's because Restrepo has an advantage; it is a documentary, so all of the footage, be it of soldiers simply enjoying themselves or death and injury in firefights, is real. And there is much honesty in that fact, as the film is still very respectful to the soldiers. But it is both gripping and chilling to witness real events that these men, and some just really boys, have to go through for a full year. I got goosebumps in the films first five minutes after witnessing something that never really occurred to me as something I could view. Sure it was from behind a screen, but film is truth. And I have seen truth in war now, and Restrepo has given me a new outlook on it entirely. Documentary buffs, war buffs, gung ho soldier wannabes, the common American, these are all the perfect people to see Restrepo, simply to be more informed about what goes on behind politics and what the real decisions are. How our soldiers are real people, going through real struggles. Restrepo is an important film.

[Rec] and [Rec] 2 are two Spanish horror films that I was fortunate enough to win tickets for in a contest. The double feature is one of cinema's greatest offerings, and so I had a blast with these two films. [Rec] was remade in America as Quarantine, a film I have not yet seen, but it is my understanding that [Rec] is infinitely superior. And [Rec] truly is a fun horror film, feeling more like an interactive ride in which you get to know the characters, all of whom get picked off one by one. It tells of a group of firefighters, police, residents of an apartment, and a news crew who are trapped inside of a building for mysterious reasons, supposedly quarantined to prevent an epidemic and contain a virus. But the virus causes a zombie like infection, causing the infected to by hyper-aggressive and impossible to kill. [Rec] is a thrilling horror movie, allowing itself to be limited within a small expanse, but also introducing another alternate reality within the confines of that space. It is written very well; shot interestingly, as found footage; edited to keep the audience on pins and needles; and filled with frights. I'm not one to be scared by a horror movie, and I was not, but I did jump at times following moments which caused the rest of the audience to scream. And in that sense it is a fun horror movie too, causing great excitement throughout. The film's sequel begins promptly after the first, although introducing a new group entering the same house. This time its a group of Special Forces, with a Ministry of Health official. But things aren't always as they seem, and the writing gets even better in this sequel, turning the world we were first introduced to inside out and questioning reality constantly as the film introduces possible causes for the sealing off of the building and the beginnings of the virus. I won't give anything away, but [Rec] and [Rec] 2 are great examples of genre-bending movies which surprise the viewer constantly at their inventiveness. Both should be watched by horror fans or just folks looking for a good scare. They won't disappoint, I promise that.

The Millennium trilogy is a compelling, dark tale, but the story behind it is equally interesting. Millennium: The Story is an hour long documentary about the series and its author, Stieg Larsson. I gained a bit of insight on the stories and enigmatic figure who created them, but it isn't a necessary viewing to anyone really. What really matters are the two films out in the trilogy so far: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and The Girl Who Played with Fire. This was my third time seeing The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and I enjoyed it just as much as my previous viewings. The films are from Sweden, telling the tale of Mikael "Kalle" Blomkvist, an investigative journalist working for Millennium, a magazine seeking justice in an unjust world. Blomkvist is charged with libel and will go to prison in six months to serve a six month sentence. In the time before serving his sentence, Blomkvist is offered an opportunity to solve a fourty year old murder of a sixteen year old girl. He takes it, always loving a good mystery and becomes wrapped up in a wealthy family with many secrets. The story feels like Ingmar Bergman for the new world, getting to the real depths of characters. And the titular character, Lisbeth Salander, is a petite yet powerful warrior of a woman, completely capable of getting by on her own and not relying on any man. It's wonderful to see such strong female characters in film, and Lisbeth may be one of the strongest. The film's sequel, The Girl Who Played with Fire, is equally compelling, picking up a year and a half after the events in the first film. The characters are now caught up in events around the sex trafficking industry, attempting to solve murders which pop up along the way. Once again, I won't ever spoil a film, but the twists contained within the sequel are too good and will leave viewers speechless after. I love these films and really need to read the books. Stay tuned for this October, when the finale of the Millennium trilogy, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, debuts in theaters. I'll probably see that at midnight too, as this may very well be one of the most compelling trilogies ever conceived.

Say Anything is a bit of a departure from the previous films I watched this weekend, a teen romantic comedy about an unlikely couple and their cute moments to their hardships. It is my introduction to director Cameron Crowe and was his first film. The film was a pre-Apatow world, but still tales that same tale of the unlikely love where a loser guy tries to win the affections of a much beautiful and much smarter girl. The guy is played aptly by John Cusack, always a great performer, and he does offer up things to the role which are uniquely him. At times the lighting feels cheap or maybe the acting is a bit weak, but ultimately I was won over by the film's inclusion of an actual plot and the fact that I found both the male and female main characters relatable for much of the film's runtime, something romantic comedies are generally lacking. It was an enjoyable work, fun for a cute little film to watch and I look forward to seeing what Crowe was able to move up onto.

Some terrific trailers I saw this week:

Snowman's Land - A foreign hitman movie. It looks darkly funny, and the trailer was well edited. Seems interesting. View the trailer here.

Nokas - Directed by the director of the original Insomnia, Nokas tells the true story of one of the most successful bank robberies in Norway's history. Once again, I don't understand the language, but this looks well done. View the trailer here.

Jack Goes Boating - The directorial debut of the greatest actor alive, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jack Goes Boating stars Hoffman as well as an awkward limo driver who finally begins dating late in life. It seems like a great, quirky romantic comedy that should be very different. View the trailer here.

Thanks for reading, and come back next week.

Emerson

Music Video Mayhem

2010-07-05T22:26:00.000-07:00

While narrative film is the number one medium for me, there is a certain art to music videos. Music videos aren't quite surrealistic enough to be considered experimental film, nor are they subversive enough to be considered alternative. It is an artform which is mutually linked with another artform, and quite strictly bound to it. It has been attempted to be merged with narrative in features such as Pink Floyd's The Wall or The Who's Tommy, but it generally only works with such concept albums, and so these features generally allude the mainstream.

But what's more is the binding that music videos have with film. Many such videos will pay homage to cinema classics. The LCD Soundsystem video for "North American Scum" clearly pays tribute to sci-fi classic 2001: A Space Odyssey. And then there are instances in films which feel very much like music videos, moments occurring in non-musicals which suddenly break out into song and get you tapping your feet right along; I'll cite my favorite film of all time, Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia, featuring the stellar Aimee Mann's song "Wise Up" in a truly cinematic yet inextricably music video moment as the feature's rising action truly comes to a build.

A good number of prominent directors get their starts in music videos: David Fincher, Michel Gondry, Mark Romanek, Spike Jonze, McG, Marc Webb, and yes, Brett Ratner and Michael Bay. Fincher, whose next film, The Social Network, is about Facebook's creator, Mark Zuckerberg, is slated to direct the American adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (don't get me started on how wrong this is), but he wants to cast an unknown for the female lead. And that unknown is a woman can be seen in Die Antwood's interesting music video for "Enter the Ninja".

But the main reason I wrote this article is to address a bit of a problem I just noticed. I can't stand when popular artists take from other, lesser artists. I'd cite today's biggest offender as MIA, taking from both the Pixies and The Clash to popularize herself. There is a difference between sampling and taking the works of other to further your own career, and MIA has clearly crossed the line. But an artist who has not crossed that line is the kid from Cleveland, Kid Cudi. This article probably makes it sound like I listen to all kinds of rap all the time, and honestly, I hardly do, but these are just my musings on music videos.

Kid Cudi had two videos done for his ever-popular song, "Pursuit of Happiness". The first was set in a party, a moody trip set through a slowed, glamorous half-reality produced by actor Josh Hartnett. It was good and fairly original.

The second video made was directed by Megaforce, an ethereal trip, furthering the separation from reality seen in the first video and increasing the drug-like effects by flipping the set about and editing smoothly around it. The problem I have with it is that it isn't original at all. It was well executed, but it's been done before, and more impressively the first time I saw it. The previously mentioned Michel Gondry has still been active in the music video community, but has found indie success with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and will release The Green Hornet starring Seth Rogen in January of next year. Gondry is a very inventive director, regarding both his music videos and films, but the most impressive of all of his music videos is by a no-hit wonder with Lucas's "Lucas with the Lid Off". The video uses the same techniques employed in Cudi's Megaforce version, but was made fifteen years prior.

And while it may seem like no big deal, it shows a deep sign of something menacing in the proverbial water of the entertainment industry. The blossoming of rip-offs and unoriginality's surge into the industry have caused a general acceptance of sequels, remakes, and adaptations. We have become a culture of the second-hand, completely derivative. That's my qualm with Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; that's my problem with the industry right now. And as Fincher's narrator of his mindfuck epic Fight Club proclaims "Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy." But then again, that itself is an adaptation.

Emerson

My Week in Film: 6/27/10-7/3/10

2010-07-04T19:53:00.000-07:00

Welcome back to yet another MWiF, my third edition. This one is a bit more brief, (my bus back from Memphis didn't have an outlet for my laptop, so that was at least five movies that I could have watched) so easy reading times are ahead for you. Films watched from the period starting June 27th, 2010 through July 3rd, 2010 include: The Kids Are All Right, Welcome to the Dollhouse, Happiness, Storytelling, Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974, and Reservoir Dogs.

I was fortunate enough to attend an advanced screening of Lisa Cholodenko's The Kids Are All Right. It also ended up being a press screening, which was interesting all on its own. But the focus is all on the film itself, so here we go; Cholodenko's film is a good effort. There are not any subtleties to it, it's all in front of the audience, but it is entertaining. The Kids Are All Right is entertaining both in the sense that it is funny and deals with dynamics which have not really been explored at length in film previously. The film's lead actresses, Annette Bening and Julianne Moore, play a lesbian couple, having had their children through the same sperm donor to insure they share some blood. That sperm donor is played by the indomitable Mark Ruffalo, an actor with great diversity who plays an oversexed everyman, in a role that seems to condemn the actions of men as careless and without regard for emotion. But this is Ruffalo, so he plays it up to a figure that really is just flawed and not all bad, and really saves the character. Bening and Moore work off of each other well, as they really could pass for a couple in the film, and the believability of their performances existed in both the dramatic tension of this movie and the normal, everyday parenting moments. While the editing and cinematography are inexact, they do lend a bit to the natural atmosphere of the movie, each of the two taking a step back to give room for the performances. And in this, it may be noted that The Kids Are All Right would work even better on the stage. This is not a usual remark I would ever think to make on a film, but it really only makes sense, as the situations lend themselves more to dramatic theater than film. And although the film's comedy is somewhat vulgar, it would be a good fit. But I would suggest people catch The Kids Are All Right as it currently exists, and probably only will, in theaters or when it eventually comes out on DVD. The performances are not to be missed in this one.

Todd Solondz. Maybe you frequent readers will remember that I saw Fear, Anxiety & Depression, his first film, last week. And maybe you remembered how bizarre I described it as. Maybe not. But now, I've seen most of his filmography, and it just gets even weirder. His films I saw for this week's edition are: Welcome to the Dollhouse, Happiness, and Storytelling. Dollhouse tells the story of 7th grader Dawn Weiner. And I must say, at first my thoughts were that never before had the seventh grade been better captured by a filmmaker. But with Solondz, things get weird fast. And that's what I've enjoyed with him as I've been watching his features, you'll never expect what's going to happen in his films. They are unpredictable black comedies, so black that you won't laugh, and may find yourself disgusted with what's going on on-screen, but it's still so vilely funny. Dawn is a total outcast, friendless and bullied, ignored by even the nerds, she begins to have a strange relationship with the school bully, as her family ignores or denies her, the middle child. And there are interesting family dynamics at play, as Dawn, the middle child, is lost between her intelligent older brother and spoiled brat little sister. But the dynamics don't ever unfold as expected, and the film is a dark treat into the dark world of suburbia, which leads me to the director's next film.

Happiness is by far the most hauntingly disturbing film that I've ever seen. It is vulgar, lewd, crude, and nasty in every respect, but how better to portray the suburbs? Solondz weaves his blackest comedy by telling the tale of three sisters and the men in their lives, with perversion, child rape, and masturbation being common topics for these perturbed characters. And for the first time, I'd say Solondz find the most bizarre balance that somehow makes these touchy subjects humorous. Go ahead and call me a fiend or a pervert myself, but it's impossible to explain Happiness properly, like the joke that is explained at great lengths after the punchline has already been revealed, so I won't spoil it. I will say that Solondz's editing is rather well conceived, but it is his writing and clear direction of the performances that makes it such a masterful work. And the performers certainly deserve credit, particularly favorite of mine Philip Seymour Hoffman and the underrated Dylan Baker. Happiness is a classic, but it's subject matter is beyond adult, so watch with great care.

The final Solondz film I watched this week was Storytelling. It tells two tales, each about the very definitions of the titular theme itself, one entitled "Fiction," the other, "Non Fiction." "Fiction," the first of the two, tells of a woman graduate student who is sleeping with a fellow classmate who has cerebral palsy. And it plays out rather ridiculously like a work of fiction would, but that isn't the point. The main characters are studying English, writing particularly, and delve into their work in front of a domineering professor. What is so fascinating about Storytelling, is that Solondz somehow inserts bits of non-fiction into "Fiction" and bits of fiction into "Non Fiction," making it his most important film for what it has to say about storytelling itself, as Solondz posits that the two generally separate mediums are really very mutually related. "Non Fiction" tells of a failure who becomes a documentarian as a last chance to achieve success. Said documentarian is played by frequent failure, but always a success, Paul Giammati. And he seeks to make a documentary about high school, but hilariously can't find a focus. The story becomes not as focused on him, and more on his main subject, Scooby, a teenager going through the college admissions process, life, family, and all that is coming of age. The scale of the climax is very powerful, and may be Solondz's most evocative writing, making both "Fiction" and "Non Fiction" interesting watches, and Storytelling a very worthy flick for those who like films with meaning or that make you think.

Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974 is a crime/thriller epic, the first of a three part British mini-series on a serial killer who plagued Northern England during the 70s. It has been considered a massively ambitious undertaking, and akin to David Fincher's Zodiac. While I do see the parallels, 1974 is a wonderful work all on its own, and very originally so. Its tales of political corruption and oppression that infiltrates the system sets it apart entirely from most other works. And most notably, the recently cast new Peter Parker/Spiderman, Andrew Garfield gives a thrilling performance as a journalist looking to make the world right, a lone crusader searching for the truth. And it's ending is glorious, with the pent up rage of cinematography, editing, and audio fueled into one opus of a climax. I greatly look forward to the other two entries of Red Riding and will be sure to update you all on my thoughts on them.

I usually only limit my review on here to films that I have never seen before, offering fresh thoughts on features that are new to me, not returning to past features. Reservoir Dogs is that exception. Because I had never really seen Reservoir Dogs until last week. Before, I had only just viewed Reservoir Dogs, but now, I have fully experienced it, having seen it on 35mm in theaters. Going to a film archive is an incredible journey, and The Gene Siskel Film Center is a wonderful place for cineastes like myself, and maybe you. Film archives, or cinematheques, offer foreign, obscure, or classic films on the big screen. Chicago's Film Center is doing a series on Quentin Tarantino, and I can't say that I've ever been happier, seeing the curtains pull back (yes, classic archives still actually do this and it's wonderful), and gazing as 24 frames pass each second onto the screen. And the print of Reservoir Dogs was beautiful; you won't get it this good anywhere other than 35mm. Seeing it this way, for a film that came out over eighteen year ago, made it feel like it could have come out yesterday. And it allowed me to gain an even deeper appreciation of a favorite film. If you're in the Chicago area, or have a film archive near you (try looking them up, you may be surprised), check out Tarantino's works on film, or any classics for that matter. Film refreshes these greats, and its shocking to see films that were made even before you were born on the silver screen with such clarity. And if you've never seen Reservoir Dogs, it is a crime, caper classic.

Stay tuned for next week, thanks for reading!

Emerson

My Week in Film: 6/20/10-6/26/10

2010-06-30T10:36:00.000-07:00

Well here we are, once again. I like this whole weekly update thing; it provides me with time to think on the films I watch, and also dedicate specific time to writing about film, rather than writing after each movie separately. Readers, let me know what you think, and feel free to chime in regarding the movies too. Without further adieu, I present to you my films watched from June 20th, 2010 to June 26th, 2010: The Brothers Bloom, Love Ranch, 71 Fragmente einer Chronologie des Zufalls (71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance), The Limits of Control, Helvetica, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, Che: Part One (The Argentine), Che: Part Two (Guerrilla), and Fear, Anxiety & Depression.

The Brothers Bloom is a feature directed by Rian Johnson. Johnson rose to indie prominence after one of my favorite films, Brick, renewed the noir genre, modernizing it, yet retaining the pulp mysticism. And while that entry, the director's debut, was an incredibly dark crime story, The Brothers Bloom is a much more light-hearted affair, yet this does not subtract from how great the feature is. Bloom revolves around the lives of two brothers, con men who swindle their victims through elaborately written cons. It is the tale of that proverbial 'last job'. But the movie is not typical in any sense of the word. It is edited wonderfully to match the movie's happy mood, and the cinematography helps to elevate this as well. The film's principle actors, Adrien Brody, Rachel Weisz, and Mark Ruffalo, are each great performers whose characterizations are storybook like, yet not overdone. It is a whimsical tale in a sense, but it certainly delivers on the promise of a crime thriller, in that it is suspenseful when necessary and will leave a viewer pondering, yet it is also not shrouded in ambiguity. I loved The Brothers Bloom, and I would implore of you to watch it.

Love Ranch was a film I was able to see ahead of time as an advanced screening, an event of which I've only recently had the benefit of partaking. Love Ranch is about a Nevada brothel in the 1970s, a niche and interesting subculture in itself. The brothel's owners, played by greats Helen Mirren and Joe Pesci, are married, but of course owning and living in a brothel has its issues. The film picks up from a point at which the eponymous whorehouse is struggling, with possible legal problems at hand and financial problems abound. Love Ranch is a good movie. This is a problem though, because it could very well have been a great movie; its stars are legendary performers and its story lends itself to the screen. I feel that the film suffers from mediocre direction and that it fails to pin down a particular style, which would have helped it immensely. Love Ranch is, however, passively enjoyable, and should be watched, but it is not in any way a film that needs to be seen at once.

71 Fragmente einer Chronologie des Zufalls or 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance is a film by Austrian auteur Michael Haneke. The film is one which is marked largely by the question "What is it exactly that I am watching?" And while there is zero cohesiveness at first, and it is initially hard to tell what is going on, and it is even difficult to make connections with the characters because of all of this, this is one fantastic film. It is totally worth it in the end because of the existential questions it brings about and truly is a definitive evocative film. This is a hard feature to get a hold of, partly because of its obscurity, and part of its being foreign, but this demands to be seen. I recommend it more to patient viewers; it isn't long, but much doesn't happen, or at least appear to happen, for much of the runtime. I am ardently an opponent of spoilers, so I will leave it at that, and just say that I urge all who can get past the fact that a film is foreign and not much happens (or appears to, remember) to see it. Haneke is quickly becoming a favorite filmmaker of mine.

I reviewed a Jim Jarmusch film last week with Dead Man. This week I saw The Limits of Control, and it was once again a "What is it exactly that I am watching?" sort of experience. I feel as though it gave me a better grasp of Jarmusch's films that I've seen; his film's are anti-genre. Broken Flowers is anti-comedy, Strangers in Paradise is anti-film itself, Dead Man is anti-western, and The Limits of Control is anti-thriller/spy movie. Jarmusch is just a very iconoclastic director, and I felt that The Limits of Control was reflective of that, but it was also too long, and the difference between it and 71 Fragments was that 71 Fragments began making sense at a certain point and The Limits of Control brought no real answers. People who can handle this or Jarmusch can go ahead and watch it, but I personally did not.

Helvetica is a font. Helvetica is a film about that font. The film is a documentary about the surprisingly deep history behind the font, typography, and different movements in graphic design. It is a very specific niche, but it is interesting to those who are interested in it. Enthusiasts of graphics, advertising, and related topics should check it out, and even those who have no clue about it and enjoy extra knowledge should give Helvetica a chance.

I'm a bit of a sap. Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist was a cute movie, and I admit I enjoyed it on that mushy teen romance level. However, this is a film blog, and from that perspective, Nick and Norah is underwhelming. The lighting is very strange at times, and doesn't feel right, while the writing is a bit silly and trite. Very typical teen movie problems. The supporting cast is also not utilized properly, as many of the secondary plots don't really go anywhere, and the editing is slow paced, or at least doesn't fit the tone which the writing sets. Nick and Norah is yet another movie with lots of potential that doesn't fulfill entirely, but it is enjoyable for a cute little flick to pass the time, which happened to be exactly what I was looking for.

Che Guevara. A man immortalized by one picture as an inspirational revolutionary figure. Steven Soderbergh's Che: Part 1 and Part 2, seek to explore the depth of the man behind the iconic figure that he was known as, and focuses specifically on his life works. Soderbergh is shaping up to be one of my top three filmmakers, and through his Che series, he has once more furthered his ability as a filmmaker to make an epic saga. I read Soderbergh's book, Getting Away With It: Or: The Further Adventures of the Luckiest Bastard You Ever Saw, and in that 2000 memoir of sorts, he doubted whether or not he'd ever be able to create an epic. With 2008's entries, he has accomplished just that. Two separate films, each filmed back to back in an unheard of schedule of 39 days for each film (78 in all), using different equipment, different aspect ratios, and creating different moods and stories entirely to form a mosaic of one legendary man. At nearly four and a half hours total, Che is an endurance test not for the faint of cinema heart, but it is well worth the expanded knowledge gained on such a prominent historical figure, and it has a good balance of genre within its runtime as well. Che is a fantastic film, and actor Benicio del Toro was unfortunately overlooked by the Academy for his impressive performance, but he did win Best Actor at Cannes Film Festival, and he most definitely deserved it.

Todd Solondz is a director who has eluded me for some time, but I finally sat down to see his first, highly experimental film Fear, Anxiety & Depression. I did not know what I was in for, and the results were very bizarre. Solondz stars as Ira, a wannabe playwright living in New York amongst successful friends. He is a Woody Allen living in a much darker world, and he never really finds his success, failing at suicide, writing, women, and everything in between. Solondz has created a very surreal experience, but also one that is humorous, albeit beyond strange. Look for reviews of the rest of Solondz's oeuvre in future installments of MWiF.

Thanks for reading. Tune in next week, and feel free to leave comments, or let me know personally, informing me of any feelings you have about my burgeoning blog or movies I reviewed.

My Week in Film: 6/13/10-6/19/10

2010-06-20T18:57:00.000-07:00

The hiatus has been apparent, I should hope. It's hard to find motivation to write, so I'm resorting to a new method, a new feature: My Week in Film. MWiF will detail the films I watch week to week with summations of whether or not they are worth a watch and why. It's simpler than reviews for both my readers and myself. Hopefully this will also spur on more followers, but for now I serve my limited group as it exists.

First up is Brothers. Brothers is a remake of a 2004 Danish film of the same name. Now I'm not a fan of the whole remake thing most of the time, particularly when it's done so soon after the original. Americans, however, would never see a Danish film, so studios capitalize on this by remaking a small film and putting big names in it. But the big names are admittedly good at their craft - Jake Gyllenhaal, Tobey Maguire, and Natalie Portman. What I found disconcerting about Brothers was its predictability for 99.9% of the feature, with only one or two moments coming down to fifty/fifty options that are also ultimately predictable in such a film. The film also underutilizes the supporting cast, filled with incredibly talented stars like Clifton Collins Jr. and Carey Mulligan. My qualms are outweighed by the powerful performances, and Brothers is well worth a viewing just to see the dynamics between its stars.

The second film I viewed this week was a very obscure film entitled Exam. I was highly interested by the concept found within the film's trailer, but details were scant. Exam ended up being a highly entertaining, deeply psychological journey and was well worth it. Its subtle buildup of a world entirely separated from our own is done to perfection, and as the film's climax nears, it is impossible to discern what the outcome will be. Exam also features no stars, which hinders it in the sense that the acting is at times sub-par, but it also aids the film in that there are no massive egos shining through characters or recognizable faces. The feature is also a good lesson in the scale of a film; while action movies and even thrillers generally pride themselves upon grandness, Exam sets itself apart by taking place only within the bounds of one room, while still creating an entirely new universe for itself. I would urge people to check out the flick; if you are apprehensive, fear not, as this is one of the best written thrillers I've seen in a long while.

Micmacs is the latest film from Amelie director Jean-Pierre Jeunet. As such, it is highly stylized, well edited, colored, and filmed. I've got very few comeuppances with this film, as it is creative and thrives upon ingenuity. The film revolves around a ridiculous set-up, perfect for a Jeunet film. It is also quite humorous, returning to gags both witty and childish from earlier in the film. Its zaniness really is what sustains it and sets it apart. And while viewers won't find much in the way of the topic of love, as was the case with Amelie, Micmacs is a film with heart that also provides an all-around enjoyable viewing experience.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou is a seriously fantastic film. It's snarky, awkward, drawn out, and delightful. Although generally considered director Wes Anderson's least popular endeavor, The Life Aquatic is funny and imaginative. Its animated sequences are made by the animation god, director of The Nightmare Before Christmas himself: Henry Selick. Seu Jorge's score contains foreign covers of David Bowie songs, and the cast works off of each other excellently. It really is a treasure to see such a fine film come together, and one that can make fun of itself with cheesily composed action sequences and utterly inane plot developments that would be scoffed at anywhere else. The Life Aquatic is a marvelous fantasy comedy, and it's a great entry into Anderson's mise-en-scene savvy oeuvre.

I am a tad despondent over anti-violent films. It's not because I'm for violence or anything, it's just they can be hypocritical by displaying violence too grotesquely just to get their point across, but the message gets mixed. My usual example of this is Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers. I'm not really a fan of the film, considering what Stone did to Tarantino's script. But that's another story. Harry Brown stars Michael Caine as a man on the edge looking for revenge. It's a bit typical, but it isn't hypocritical, which is what I like about it. Harry Brown's eponymous character is a man on a mission, but it's ultimately a mission of peace. And it is that which makes the film surprisingly beautiful, despite how tonally and visually bleak it is. And while Caine may be the only big performer, ravings say it's his best role ever, and as far as I can tell, that's just about true besides his role in the original Sleuth. This is a wonderfully dark British film which demands a viewing.

I get into particular directors for a while, viewing their assorted filmographies to better understand their sensibilities. Wes Anderson (see: The Life Aquatic) is one of those such directors, and his 2009 stop motion animation film Fantastic Mr. Fox was the last film of his currently available that I had to see. Possibly taking a queue from Selick (Anderson's animation partner for Life Aquatic), the film utilizes a familiar kind of animation similar to Selick's works. Anderson's film revitalizes a childhood classic in the same way Spike Jonze brought a movie about childhood to adults with his 2009 film Where the Wild Things Are. Fox has many great voice actors bringing to life the wacky characters from Roald Dahl's seminal book. But the feature also retains much of its perceived look from the book, while still implementing Anderson's obsessive compulsive production design into animation. Fox is a wickedly funny film in the same vain as other Anderson films, yet it is more accessible, and for all of those reasons, I recommend it.

Terrence Malick is a grand example of a strange filmmaker. Looking at his selected works, one can see the massive gap between films; since his 1973 feature debut with Badlands, he has only released four films, with the film Tree of Life due to be released this year, yet entirely enshrouded in mystery. I was first introduced to Malick this past week with his debut Badlands, and I must say it was a very different experience. It is definitely not for everyone, as it is very bold and somewhat experimental in its presentation. It is not the sort of film to be viewed only once, as it is very deep, yet without appearing so; it is the tale of simple people who become wrapped in something which escalates and, all too quickly, they lose all control. The two leads are aptly played by Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek. I'm generally not a fan of Sheen, but he really shines in a menacing way in Badlands. While the film recalls Bonnie and Clyde and even the lesser Boxcar Bertha, or even Scorsese's Taxi Driver, Badlands has some hidden air of mysticism to it. Badlands is a special film, and although it will not be enjoyed by all, those who appreciate will realize its greatness.

Dead Man is a film by Jim Jarmusch, a very hard to describe filmmaker, with a style so particular that it is easily identifiable as his own. Dead Man is an anti-western of sorts, yet from a cinematography standpoint it hearkens back to many old western films; its editing is a mix of an acid trip and the classic western aesthetic. Dead Man stars Johnny Depp as William Blake, an accountant who is travelling far west to claim a new job after troubles in his life back in Cleveland prevent him from continuing his life there. But he quickly finds how depraved the Wild West is, and how much of an outsider he is too. My problems with Dead Man are many: I'm no fan of Johnny Depp, and this film is no different; most of the film's rising action is conquered in steps, leaving the narrative structure to be very mechanical and devoid of emotion; the film's great supporting cast is really only filled with cameos. But the film has two redemptive qualities: one, it is beautiful to behold the black and white film, and two, Neil Young's score perfectly supplements the on-screen insanity. Jarmusch's film is a bit too far fetched for my likings, but fans of Depp will take exception to my issues and ultimately enjoy the film. If Jarmusch interests you, I recommend his comedy Broken Flowers.

Paul Verhoeven's film Basic Instinct is sex on film. Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone act together in a film which is highly thematic, displaying Verhoeven's musings on both sexes: sex as in gender roles, and sex as in intimacy. Basic Instinct is a mystery/thriller which seeks to challenge the viewer's thoughts on each sex, regarding how powerful a woman can be, and how far sexual urges can take a person. The film is a winding tumult into desire and is constructed quite well, enough so that I found myself deeply in wonderment at the film's ability to truly invoke a sense of passion within the characters. It is also deeply cerebral, tearing away at the mind itself throughout. Basic Instinct is all-in-all the perfect combination: a thinking man's movie about sex.

Besides films I actually watched, I came upon two worthwhile trailers to share, one for Conviction, starring Hilary Swank and Sam Rockwell. Sam Rockwell is, and has been, one of our finest actors. With his role in Iron Man 2 as Justin Hammer, he finally found mainstream popularity. In Conviction, Rockwell may very well have likely earned himself a long overdue Oscar nomination.

Never Let Me Go is a film of great interest to me. Directed by Mark Romanek, the director behind the Nine Inch Nails music video for "Closer" and One Hour Photo, rather than direct The Wolfman, Romanek went with Never Let Me Go, an adaptation of one of Time Magazine's top 100 novels of all time. Starring two of my favorite actors, who I firmly believe will each one day earn Oscars, Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield play young adults just getting out in the world from a reclusive society. While the trailer is rather ambiguous, I know this will be a great film, and I will be first in line to see it.

See you all next week, and thanks for checking in for this first feature!

Emerson

EXCLUSIVE: NEW FILM BASED ON WALTER KIRN BOOK IN THE WORKS

2010-05-27T14:39:00.000-07:00

Well, it's been long enough, but I finally got my own bit of film news, and got it all by myself. This news comes directly from the source, Walter Kirn, and details a plan in the works to make one of his books into a feature length film.

Kirn, whose work I discovered through the adaptation of his first novel, Thumbsucker, has written that book, as well as the recently popular Up in the Air. With the success and acclaim of the latter, it's no wonder that there are possible plans to put his novel Mission to America on the silver screen. The book concerns two evangelical figures trying to spread the word of their small religious sect and find a woman for himself so as to keep the population growing for more generations. Having read the book, albeit a while ago, I must say it was quite humorous, and very worthy of both an adaptation and a read.

How I got this scoop is something I'm rather proud of, as Walter Kirn is one of my favorite writers, and I am friends with him on social networking website Facebook. Kirn just today posted a status saying: "is excited by growing signs that his novel Mission To America will be made into a movie." This can only mean good things for both the writer and Hollywood, as Kirn's books offer up a great deal more than most films do and will bring that all to audiences, making his work even more mainstream.

Emerson

The Industry

2010-05-25T20:35:00.000-07:00

Something's awry in Hollywood. I just put the pieces together, and I sense the end of motion picture cinema as we know it, or at least a large degradation of a stellar medium. Let's set out the facts, then connect the points together:

1. Recently, ticket sales have skyrocketed. The most recent offender was Shrek's fourth feature film, of which tickets went as high as, and possibly beyond $20 each. This is a deplorable example of movie studios trying to sucker audiences into paying top dollar, and raising ticket costs all across the board.

2. Deals have recently been attempted to allow films to be released on demand shortly after being released in theaters. The cost of such on demand films would be between $20 and $30, bringing feature films into audience's homes just shortly after release and at the price of the movie itself for one viewing.

3. Connecting the points - I'd like to present information regarding the most recent format wars, HDDVD vs. Blu-ray. There was brief speculation that Microsoft purposefully lost this war by backing HDDVD so that they could go with digital distribution. While largely rumors, there is certainly some validity to this statement; Microsoft had a disadvantage when they went with Toshiba's HDDVDs and didn't have the player built into the Xbox 360 and probably needed a backup. What I am suggesting is an entirely different format war, not quite digital versus film, but an offshoot of that: theater versus on demand. I would not be in the least surprised if the studios were jacking up ticket prices so they could more easily infiltrate the home theater. The problem is that this will cause features to be more like direct-to-video in quality, with studios able to churn out more random crap throughout the year and deliver it both to the home and the theater. This would also take away from the beauty of 24 frames passing in front of light every second and would be an unfortunate demise to a mostly wondrous artform.

Emerson

Dear Film:

2010-04-29T18:20:00.000-07:00

Dear Roger Ebert: I wholeheartedly agree with you; 3D is an awful way for such a beautiful medium to go. More on that here.

Dear Fox Studios: You've killed several comic properties already, please don't kill a story as good as this.

Dear Sony Pictures: I just know you're going to mess this up, so please just can it, and chalk it up to budget problems like you fucks did with an actually good idea with Steven Soderbergh's Moneyball.

Dear Jonah Hex: You look like the best thing of your kind since Wild, Wild West but even campier and more comic friendly. Please don't mess this up. Check out the trailer here.

Dear District 9: I approve of your sequel. And so I greenlight it.

Dear DC and Warner Brothers: You can do this with Superman; you can make the Superman film the world needs. If Christopher Nolan, of The Dark Knight fame, is involved, I can say that I am confident in your universe. And I already love The Green Lantern, having read that early draft of the script. You have the better heroes, the better themes, the better stories; you can beat Marvel at this and make a Justice League film that could rank among the best films of all time. Just tread carefully, work out large plot arcs ahead of time, and small ones. Think smarter than Marvel and have backups if one of your films doesn't meet expectations *cough*The Incredible Hulk*cough*. And most importantly, get the tone right for every hero and only make a Justice League film if you feel the execution will be perfect. For more on this read this article.

Review: Changeling

2010-03-28T15:19:00.000-07:00

Filmstockade readers, it has happened once more! And twice in a row! I have added yet another film to the favorites list: a film from 2008, Clint Eastwood's Changeling. The film tells the tale of a mother lamenting her missing son. Playing the mother, Angelina Jolie delivers a lachrymose performance. But she is but a player amongst many other greats, all of whom contribute to the beauty of the film. Clint Eastwood's acting talent no doubt extends to his direction.

The film is a no nonsense look at an exponentially worsening situation. What's more heartbreaking is the fact that the film is based on a true story. It is not one that necessarily lends itself to the medium, but is well woven by all those who participated in this twisted tale of justice and mourning. Above all, the film is emotive beyond that of many others, causing a stewing of emotions within myself as I am torn between feeling sorry for the characters, bottling up anger at the bigots, and being proud at problems rectified. Changeling is a kick in the face to the wrongs of the institutions which seek to suppress people. It is a peaceful revenge film, seeking not to get people pumped up about an issue, just aware that such atrocities have indeed been committed. The lighting miraculously shines against 1920's Los Angeles while drawing from a yellow-brown pallet. The film is also edited smoothly and efficiently. There is also a surprising build in what Eastwood has to offer the audience, making the film's two hour and twenty minute runtime fly by. The writing gets right into the thick of the main plot while still having had enough time to get the audience acclimated to the characters and setting. It is a very nostalgic look at the period as well, not focusing on the economics of the time which film so often does, but rather sociocultural and political issues of the time, which are in my opinion far more interesting.

I would highly recommend Changeling to all who appreciate film, as it has much to offer all viewers. I would say that it was one of the best films to come out of 2008, and that it may catch people off guard with how good it is, as it was a somewhat overlooked feature. I would recommend going into the film with as little knowledge of it as possible, but will provide a trailer for those further interested here.

Emerson

Review: After Hours

2010-03-27T19:45:00.000-07:00

Well filmstockade readers, it's finally happened. Since the creation of this little blog, I have not added any movies to my favorite films list... until now. That's right, Martin Scorsese's 1985 film After Hours has joined 115 other films to become one of my all time favorite films. This may seem to be an excessive number of favorites, but considering that I have seen over 1200 films as of this writing. More on After Hours below.

Frequent visitors (all two of you) will notice the recent trend of Scorsese films that I've watched; I immensely enjoy seeing a director's entire filmography around the same time. When I was a little kid, it was Mel Brooks films, then I got serious into film a couple years ago and it was Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Kubrick; now I'm working toward finishing Steven Soderbergh's and Martin Scorsese's. Seeing a director's entire work is a real treat, with his or her common themes across films really bleeding through. After Hours, on the other hand, is an example of a completely different offering by a director who has been known for something else entirely. Scorsese breaks the mold of the crime dramas he had started his career with by showcasing a tale of a bizarre night spent wandering through the streets of Manhattan, a plot not too different in its basic form from Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. After Hours is not that film though; it is an experiment in subtleties, an ode to a bad night, a starkly funny symphony for the awkward and the strained. It is a perfectly paced work of art, veering meticulously between fast, Abbott and Costello style banter to slow, surreal sequences which border the impossible. Scorsese's intelligent cinematography is downplayed but is still well utilized, highlighting the isolated streets of his own hometown. It is a film representative of many things, many of which I am still left pondering. It is about confusion, consequences, fate, crime, insanity, love, lust, interpersonal relationships. It is a true marvel to witness, and I'm sure this is coming off more as a fanboy rant, but I am experiencing sheer joy at having seen a film which was constructed so meaningfully and so meaninglessly. Although Scorsese did not write the film, the writing is some of the best of its time, and was actually done by a Columbia University film student, which he got an A on. Watch the trailer here and watch the movie ASAP.

Emerson

Review: Fear and Desire

2010-03-27T17:34:00.000-07:00

Stanley Kubrick is one of the greatest directors of all time. My love for Kubrick and his work is limitless, and I have seen most of his films. From his first short film, Flying Padre to his last feature, Eyes Wide Shut, the final cut of which was turned into studio four days prior to his passing. In between there, the only films of his I had not seen were, Fear and Desire, an ultra-rare war picture of which there are only bootlegs and one film reel, Spartacus, an epic set in Ancient Rome, and Lolita, a film about a promiscuous young girl. I still have yet to see the latter two, but intend on doing so promptly, but I was just fortunate enough to have found a somewhat good quality version of the former on Youtube.

Stanley Kubrick is a director with a deep history and an unfathomable understanding of all of the aspects that go into making a film. He is who many budding filmmakers aspire to be like and revere, myself included. Kubrick's first two short films are actually somewhat interesting, with Day of the Fight having apparent influence on his hour long Killer's Kiss. After Day of the Fight, Kubrick entered the world of feature filmmaking with 1953's Fear and Desire. There are many stories surrounding the creation of the feature among his appreciators, as is the case with all of Kubrick's legendary motion pictures. The most important however regards the film's limited availability; Kubrick, shortly after releasing it, destroyed the original film negative, considering it to be too much of an amateur effort. However, Kubrick didn't know that Eastman Kodak kept a negative copy in their archives of all of their films, and so, there is only one copy available in the Eastman Museum in Rochester, New York. It is supposedly available for private, individual screening.

The film itself is admittedly of poor quality, but I'm only referring to the degradation in image quality caused by only a poor print being available. Kubrick was primarily a director of imagery, especially as evidenced by his orchestral sci-fi 2001: A Space Odyssey. Fear and Desire is quite beautiful for a film made on a budget of $20,000. It shows much promise in the director and the writing is something which is on the level with much of his other work. He didn't even really come into his own later, as he evidently always had the talent of being an excellent auteur. The editing was a bit sloppy at some points, but I am one hundred percent sure that was from the print I watched, so I cannot really comment on the quality of the editing, which Kubrick did himself. Several sequences, however, are edited spectacularly. Back to the writing, I feel that Fear and Desire is very limited in its writing, something normal for such a low budget feature, but I cannot even imagine what Kubrick would have been able to accomplish with enough financing. The writing also contains many ideals found in later Kubrick films: ideals of both titular issues, as well as insanity and war, glory, pride, violence, and helplessness. The actors each do reasonably well in their respective parts and do not do anything to hinder the film.

Folks wanting to trek into Kubrick should probably see his more popular films, but Fear and Desire is not to be missed by any film buffs. Fear and Desire may be viewed split up in its entirety here.

Emerson

Review: Mean Streets

2010-03-27T09:48:00.000-07:00

Martin Scorsese is a living legend. I've talked about the man before regarding his most recent film, Shutter Island, as well as his first feature film, Boxcar Bertha. I am slowly but surely becoming a fan of the guy's filmography, in part to his breakout film, Mean Streets.

Boxcar Bertha was a very pointless and disappointing film, although it was Scorsese's first try at a feature-length film. He followed that up with 1973's Mean Streets, a hard look at life on the streets of Little Italy. The film is very personal, dealing with the subtleties of being a criminal and the impact of religion on those from that area. Scorsese himself hails from New York's Little Italy, and even considered entering the priesthood before deciding on filmmaking. Mean Streets is mostly devoid of plot and is more of a character study than anything, inserting the audience into the lives of Charlie (Harvey Keitel) and Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro). Charlie is the level-headed, rational caretaker of his friends, a true leader, contrasting the silly, fun-loving Johnny Boy. But the two are close, as Charlie cares very much for the misguided, misunderstood Johnny Boy. De Niro and Keitel work well off of each other, but also clearly stand well on their own, demonstrating acting dynamics. And the script was well written for each of them, having even received a nod from the WGA for best screenplay. The story also deals with several below the surface thoughts that I found stimulating, including the concept of hell, war, and love. Scorsese does not tackle war head on, but those willing to catch his disdain for Vietnam will easily pick up on it. The issue of Charlie's love life is a major arc throughout the entirety of the movie and is a great issue, almost worthy of its own feature, as a man deals with a relationship he is both afraid of but wants to pursue so much.

The score for Scorsese's film is supreme, offering up great tunes paired up with visuals ironically. The great, raw power with which Scorsese controls the camera is hard to match, with beautiful, complicated shots in every scene, keeping the viewer thoroughly entertained. The beautiful, distracted club lighting separates the reality of the characters within a hell they are permanently confined to, caught in the infinite fire of the inferno even as they live. The editing is well done, but Scorsese mostly uses long takes with very few close ups, necessitating less cuts and distancing the characters from the audience.

Mean Streets is a great watch, filled with glorious imagery which could only have been executed by a true master. I now know why Scorsese is considered such a great director. And for those unfamiliar with Scorsese, Mean Streets is the perfect introduction to the auteur. View the trailer here.

Emerson

Review: Amadeus

2010-03-27T08:16:00.000-07:00

I am not a fan of opera; I must make that clear before getting into this review. I don't mind an operatically composed film, but the real thing is all too much for me. This leads into my review of Milos Forman's film Amadeus.

I am a fan of one of Forman's earlier films, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It is a masterful film which still holds up today in all respects. And then there is the other film of his that I have seen, the Jim Carrey vehicle, Man on the Moon, which I found simply bizarre. So, I had no real way of knowing what 1984's Amadeus would be like. The Czech director's take on Mozart's life was unfortunately all too standard, one with which I was already mostly familiar from general knowledge and middle school music class. The little details which Forman provides do not feel necessary to the story and cause the feature to drag on endlessly. Seeing the story mostly from the perspective of Amadeus's rival Salieri is entertaining to a certain extent, but by the end his rantings grow tiresome as he spews out the same tantrums over and over again. I was also flummoxed by the annoying actor playing the eponymous composer, and I did see that was the point at times, but it carried on to the whole performance. I could see Forman's intention behind all of these problems, but they still remained and made a film which should have been a grand opus to a legend into an average film that could have really been made by anyone. With any period piece, the large amount of extras, period makeup, and ornate costumes is certainly impressive but, once again, could have been accomplished by a lesser director too. Forman is a capable director, capable of much more than the Amadeus he showed the world, and so, the film is a disappointment.

The film is somewhat well written, dialog coming off almost perfectly, but structurally standard. The thematic backing to this structure is what holds up the film and is what would have possibly collapsed in the hands of any other director. The camerawork is surprisingly bland, with lighting being only interesting at times and lackluster for a majority of the feature. I must applaud the editing though, as it is also a saving grace for this work, as it constructs meaning and was all heavily influential on the film's good moments.

I honestly feel that Amadeus just is not a movie for me. Those who are interested in it can check out a trailer here.

Emerson

Review: Predator 2

2010-03-26T16:54:00.000-07:00

The original Predator is a classic action film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger about a group of gung-ho commandos who are taken by surprise in the middle of the jungle by a Predator, an elite extraterrestrial whose skills in combat exceed those of most humans. The original was a great sci-fi action piece; it's brilliance, legendary. With Nimrod Antal's (Vacancy, Armored) Predators coming out this summer, I figured I'd give the second film in the series a go, further familiarizing myself with the franchise. But was it comparable to the original?

Predator 2 was released in 1990 and takes place in 1997 within a semi-dystopic Los Angeles on the brink of martial law. The film opens on gang fighting located within downtown L.A. and the struggle the police forces go through in attempts to quell the harsh revolts. It is at this point that the audience is introduced to our protagonist, Lieutenant Mike Harrigan (Danny Glover). Harrigan is the typical hard boiled cop, always prepared to do more than his superiors need or want. Except he's not so typical; Harrigan takes on a foe from another universe entirely. The special effects for such a film are necessarily big budget, but they do not always appear so. I will concede to the fact that the film was made in 1990, and there were some sequences which were well done by that time's standard, but it was at times choppy. The conflict between Glover's character and the Predator is an interesting concept: an everyman taking down an invincible, but that conflict is often brought down by the inferior supporting actors, save for the always dynamic Gary Busey.

Predator 2 has some good ideas which furthered the concept of the original out into an urban area, but the ideas aren't always executed all that well, in part I'm sure to director Stephen Hopkins. The film is enjoyable for a good portion of its duration, but comes off as too cheesy, even for a film like this. Predator 2's cinematic aspects are hardly worth noting, as this is just another action film, but it's just barely enough over mediocre for me to recommend it. However, those interested in getting into the Predator series should go with the original, and if you happen to enjoy that a great deal, check out this sequel.

Emerson

The Process: Scripting

2010-03-20T14:52:00.000-07:00

Screenplays usually begin one of two ways: 1) the script is commissioned to a writer by a studio, or 2) the script is written with no studio involvement, made by a writer trying to make it in the tumultuous world that is Hollywood. The latter is called a spec script and is what I have begun writing.

I'll back up to the idea's beginning; it originated as an idea for a short film, one that was very limited and restricted to a very specific incident revolving around a married couple. I had nowhere for the idea to go, but saved it to the idea archives because I could potentially make it as a short in film school or something like that. But, quite miraculously, and it's funny how often this blog weaves into my personal life, I met someone who became my muse, proved to be the inspiration I needed to elevate the idea beyond its low position on the complexity totem pole. As a result of this person, to whom I am indebted, I gained the epiphany necessary to write a new screenplay. This screenplay will provide part of my fulfillment of my goal to have written two scripts by year's end.

As I mentioned, the plot revolves around a married couple through the history of their marriage. The idea centered around a very specific motif in their relationship and revolved mostly around that. If I sound ambiguous, that's because I intend to and also intend to post the finished screenplay here (in other words: NO SPOILERS FOR YOU!). With the help of my newfound friend, I have realized that I must center the plot around the entire relationship of the main couple, starting from the very moment the two meet and ending at the same point I had originally intended, lengthening the idea to fill the necessary amount of screentime.

Unfortunately, the problem I continually run into is connecting the amazingly powerful ideas while still keeping constancy with the emotional appeal. I get over this by just writing stream of consciousness, as ideas come to me. It works for the most part, but writer's block can be quite a foe. I have also, in the past, dealt with th issue of the best mode by which to write a screenplay. I started writing my first screenplay in an OpenOffice.org document, which is a mere word processor. A few pages in, it became apparent that both: 1) I was actually going to go through with writing an entire script, and 2) word processors are the single worst method of writing a script. So I buckled down and did some research on the best ways to screenwrite. I got hands on experience with the software and webware that was available out there. Celtx is incredibly mediocre, having only the advantage of being available for PC, Mac, AND Linux. Final Draft is a bit too technical, filled with unnecessary setting. Zhura was the best webware that I was aware of at the time, so I used it, able to write from wherever I pleased. This advantage was pretty hefty, as well as the ability to write out ideas and outlines on the web, with many formats to choose between, as well as an expansive online community for help. Writing my first screenplay went pretty well from this standpoint, but I yearned for more. So I searched some more, and I found what has been the right option for me. Adobe has brought about a free public preview of its own screenwriting software, Adobe Story. Story offers almost all that Zhura does, save for the online community that I rarely utilized anyway, and more. The most important of Story is the ability to work both online and offline, allowing me to work from anywhere and have confidence in what I am doing. The program's user interface is also more streamlined than any others I have used previously and is actually quite marvelous for organizing such simple things as which characters appear in which scenes. I greatly look forward to Adobe rolling out new features with a full version on the way. I also look forward to actually working on my screenplay rather than constantly procrastinating by writing blog posts. Seen above is my newest screenplay entitled either Hey or The Standard, Hard Bullshit (suggestions?) running in Adobe Story. Those curious in screenwriting only need an Adobe account to try Story out, or can get a look at Zhura or Celtx to begin.

Emerson

Review: Bound

2010-03-12T19:21:00.000-08:00

The Wachowskis (formerly the Wachowski Brothers) are notorious for their epic Matrix trilogy, a series of films which remains one of my all time favorites and is part of the reason I love film so very much, as the original was my first R-rated film. Little known to the public, before directing Speed Racer and The Matrix and its sequels, the Wachowski's debuted with the film Bound. Today, I took the time to finally watch that film.

Bound begins rather simply, the gritty, shadowed, and blocked typography of the opening credits forebodes the tone of the film. It happened to be incredibly indicative of the dark tonal qualities of the film in plot, style, and cinematography. The noir-ish beginning fused with a hyper-fetishistic look that would be familiar to anyone who has seen The Matrix morphed into something more, a MacGuffin caper in the trails of Pulp Fiction bearing many similarities to the directors' later works. Most surprising is the clear number of similarities between this crime film and the science fiction work on which the directors would later work. There were at least ten major similarities to the siblings' mind-bending franchise, of which a major academic paper could be constructed drawing meaningful parallels between the two. These commonalities include, but are not limited to: very similar scores at specific moments, shots of only a telephone in a room, a strong central female character, Joe Pantoliano as a crook willing to betray anyone for a price, showing a plan unfolding as it is being planned, and manipulation of time in editing. The combination of these factors would make a very interesting quadrupole-feature, watching the first four films of the auteurs' filmography.

The plot of Bound revolves around two troubled women who become romantically involved. It warps from a psychosexual mind game into a cerebral, beautifully crafted thriller, before returning back to its roots. In many ways the stylized sexuality at the film's inception and occurring in bits throughout were reminiscent to David Cronenberg's Crash, also released in 1996. If the Wachowskis were to return to this lower budget style while maintaining the production quality and special effects that they have honed over the years, I am certain the two would return to prominence.

I cannot stress enough the beauty of the film's cinematography, with many shots being composed so incredibly beautifully. The frame which I have included in this article is from both one of the most wonderfully executed shots and scenes in recent memory, with the Wachowskis combining powerful aural and visual blows directly to the audience's minds. This is however not limited to this one scene, as the film is an early example of the employment of one of my favorite rigs, the Snorricam, a rig which is affixed to the actor and keeps focus on said subject (it can be seen at the 1:01 mark on the trailer linked below). The Wachowski's technical skill is obvious from such an early point in their career. Fans of their work should delve into Bound and those who have not yet seen The Matrix must be living in a hole. View the trailer here, and give Bound your undivided attention.

Emerson

Review: Paranormal Activity

2010-03-09T17:48:00.000-08:00

Paranormal Activity was directed by first time director Oren Peli. The film garnered much media attention in the fall of last year when it gained instant success as a truly terrifying horror movie, made on the low budget of $15,000. The film ended up grossing over $150,000,000, making over ten-thousand times what it was made for. Horror has not been a genre to intimidate me generally, as I have indulged in watching some rather vile films, and have not been legitimately terrified during a film in some time; for this reason, I was captivated by the promise of a legitimately scary flick.

Paranormal Activity, however did not deliver on this account, however. I found myself unfulfilled sitting, waiting for more to happen even at the film's lackluster climax. Peli failed on many accounts in this first effort and I shun both Hollywood and those who flocked to theaters, attracted to the quick fright that could be provided by this film. It was largely atmospheric in its attempts to terrify, but always came up short, not once causing me to even jump at its pitifully wielded special effects, which happened to be limited to only simple ambient noise and fans, along with one lame instance of implementation of compositing software. The film's style is unbearable, as I swear to have seen this film done many times before, and much better, even in Sam Raimi's disappointing Drag Me to Hell and David Goyer's even worse The Unborn, both of which are two examples coming from 2009 alone. The film pretends to have some sort of found footage sense to it, which comes off as cheesy and has been done before. Peli fails to innovate in any way, which is why I am so disappointed in both studios and audiences alike.

The biggest reason I do not like Paranormal Activity is what it means for filmmaking as a whole. The movie, which really plays out as a ninety minute Youtube video, exhibiting no skill with editing, is the beginning of a toned down, bare-bones filmmaking process, which I would be okay with in the case of Steven Soderbergh's Schizopolis, but Peli's film is the studio gold which audiences stupidly flock to based on viral advertising. This means that many films coming out in the future will have much lower production values, aiming only to match this film's success and not strive for any creative goals. The film also has little value writing wise, nothing in the way of cinematography except for obnoxiously shallow blacks, and very small instances of good acting which are dashed away after silly performances become obviously transparent. Audiences too should not have been tricked so easily into such basic fodder, when time spent watching Peli's movie could be spent better on independent horror of more value, such as the underrated Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon. Paranormal Activity is a film for those who enjoy basic crap movies and have not a single care for cinematic art.

Emerson

Review: A Perfect Getaway

2010-03-07T14:08:00.000-08:00

Film is a very powerful, emotive medium. It can be surprisingly good, completely predictably awful, or anywhere in between and beyond. That's why I love it when a film like A Perfect Getaway rolls around; it allows me to appreciate film so much more. David Twohy's film represents something that is all too often avoided in Hollywood: a full body, completely developed movie. While it verges on camp at times (no pun intended!), A Perfect Getaway magnifies some of its lesser aspects, evolving it into a B+ film.

David Twohy, for the uninitiated, is the writer/director of the Riddick films, as well as the writer for The Fugitive. His films have only achieved a moderate level of success, being taken often as a second rate kind of guy. A Perfect Getaway has the tendency to feel this way throughout the first hour of screentime, but becomes a much better experience as the tables turn and more is revealed about the point of views being expressed in what is surely one of the better twists of 2009 film. The film's Hawaii location also places a large amount of thematic importance on the story, reflective of the film's underlying message of beauty and perfection as being only external and the internal insanity which lies in everyone. The film is especially well scripted by Twohy himself, and proves to gain interest as it progresses from the originally somewhat lackluster beginning. Viewers who are able to sit through an unsatisfying mystery and allow it to blossom will be pleased and rewarded with the film's satiating last act.

The six characters around whom the story takes place are caricatures of real people, but this plays a big part in the film's twist, proving that what we had witnessed was not bad acting, but rather the posing and deceptiveness of the human being. And more importantly, the film is not in your face with these messages of which I speak, but rather allows the audience to enjoy it at each individual's own level. There is not much in the way of action save for the climax, but it certainly can be heart racing at other times, although this is hit or miss.

When the film does become more interesting plot-wise, it also becomes technically better, utilizing a deep, dark navy and showing off split-screen editing, something that is quite difficult to implement effectively but is done quite well. While A Perfect Getaway could have used some rewrites toward the beginning and would have been helped by somewhat more skilled actors, the final product is not too shabby. Give the film a chance and check out the trailer here.

Emerson

Emerson's Oscar Predictions

2010-03-06T18:39:00.001-08:00

I am not a huge fan of the Oscars, but it is pretty hard to deny the weight of the night. The biggest names in show business all gather in one place together for one night per year. To read my qualms with the Oscars, you can view this article. But for now, I'll be giving what my predictions/hopes are for this years field of competitors.

My list of winners as follows:

Performance by an actor in a leading role
George Clooney in "Up in the Air"

Performance by an actor in a supporting role
Christoph Waltz in "Inglourious Basterds"

Performance by an actress in a leading role
Carey Mulligan in "An Education" (Sony Pictures Classics)

Performance by an actress in a supporting role
Mo'Nique in "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"

Best animated feature film of the year
"Up" (Walt Disney) Pete Docter

Achievement in art direction
"The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" (Sony Pictures Classics) Art Direction: Dave Warren and Anastasia Masaro
Set Decoration: Caroline Smith

Achievement in cinematography
"The White Ribbon" (Sony Pictures Classics) Christian Berger

Achievement in costume design
"Coco before Chanel" (Sony Pictures Classics) Catherine Leterrier

Achievement in directing
"The Hurt Locker" (Summit Entertainment) Kathryn Bigelow

Best documentary feature
"The Cove" (Roadside Attractions)
An Oceanic Preservation Society Production

Best documentary short subject
"The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant"
A Community Media Production Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert

Achievement in film editing
"Inglourious Basterds" (The Weinstein Company) Sally Menke

Best foreign language film of the year
"The White Ribbon" (Sony Pictures Classics)
An X Filme Creative Pool/Wega Film/Les Films du Losange/Lucky Red Production Germany

Achievement in makeup
"Star Trek" (Paramount and Spyglass Entertainment) Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow

Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score)
"Avatar" (20th Century Fox) James Horner

Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original song)
"The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)" from "Crazy Heart" (Fox Searchlight) Music and Lyric by Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett

Best motion picture of the year
"The Hurt Locker" (Summit Entertainment)
A Voltage Pictures Production Nominees to be determined

Best animated short film
"Logorama" (Autour de Minuit)
An Autour de Minuit Production Nicolas Schmerkin

Best live action short film
"The New Tenants"
A Park Pictures and M & M Production Joachim Back and Tivi Magnusson

Achievement in sound editing
"The Hurt Locker" (Summit Entertainment) Paul N.J. Ottosson

Achievement in sound mixing
"The Hurt Locker" (Summit Entertainment) Paul N.J. Ottosson and Ray Beckett

Achievement in visual effects
"Avatar" (20th Century Fox) Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones

Adapted screenplay
"Up in the Air" (Paramount in association with Cold Spring Pictures and DW Studios) Screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

Original screenplay
"Inglourious Basterds" (The Weinstein Company) Written by Quentin Tarantino

Catch the 82nd Annual Academy Awards on March 7th, 2010.

Review: Law Abiding Citizen

2010-03-06T13:50:00.000-08:00

Law Abiding Citizen stars Gerard Butler (300, Gamer) as Clyde Shelton opposite Jamie Foxx (Ray, Collateral) as Nick Rice. The film begins with an emotional bang and instantly gets into the gritty mood which exists throughout, not dawdling with the audience in any fashion. The film was directed by F. Gary Gray (Friday, The Italian Job) and written by the often fascinating Kurt Wimmer (The Thomas Crown Affair, Equilibrium).

Both those familiar with the film's plot and going into it knowing nothing will be somewhat jarred by the fact that it begins so quickly. Gerard Butler performs well from the get-go, emotionally impacting the audience in his role as the father out for revenge. But the film takes an intriguing turn on the revenge themes that have been hacked to death before: Law Abiding Citizen is not a revenge film at all. Instead, the film fights to prove the injustice provided by the American justice system. The film also dabbles in a bit of gore, but more teases the audience with only brief moments of intense imagery rather than becoming overbearing torture porn (See: Saw). Jamie Foxx's performance as the up-and-coming, hot-shot attorney looking to make a name for himself is very deliberate, which generally holds up, but can be to much to the point of forced delivery, which brings down several key moments of the feature.

The films direction is mostly standard, but Gray certainly did not do anything to hurt the final film. The film is also written quite well, not being to outlandish and yet still taking place within its own fantastical world, causing a true suspension of disbelief. I must admit to being a fan of Wimmer's writing, but the man delivers once more, escalating the action/thriller film above its current public perception.

Also crucial to the film is the coloring, done by Stephen Nakamura, who I, once again, cannot stress enough as having one of the most underrated careers in Hollywood. His blues drive the film's feel, improving it greatly. If you're interested in his process of coloring, you may find an article here. This works in conjunction with the many high angles utilized by cinematographer Jonathan Sela (Powder Blue). This also works alongside the editing, particularly in one surreal sequence juxtaposing parenthood and a violent death, which truly exemplifies the power of editing in film. Law Abiding Citizen is a very worthwhile film. It is never too predictable, and is a very redeeming cinematic experience. Although he does not add very much to the film, I must also plug the fact that my favorite Irish actor, Colm Meaney, has a supporting role. View the trailer for Law Abiding Citizen here.

Emerson

The Process: Filming

2010-03-05T16:42:00.000-08:00

I am still trudging through Steven Soderbergh's book Getting Away With It: Or: The Further Adventures of the Luckiest Bastard You Ever Saw. It's excellent material, especially for someone interested in the world of filmmaking or the mind of a director/screenwriter. Soderbergh talks with Richard Lester and provides details from his journal, connecting film past with the modern. As the two talk it's apparent that the most dreaded part of making a film is the filming itself. I recently got to experience what Lester and Soderbergh dread so very much and have decided to share my experience with you.

I was shooting a short film, tentatively titled Diremption (more on that later), which on the page came out to five minutes. Lester and Soderbergh describe using one day to shoot two minutes worth of the final film. I shot my five minutes over the course of about three hours. Now I would certainly not dare to say that Diremption bears the same production quality as the aforementioned legendary directors, however, it is important to know and understand how condensed a shooting schedule could become.

The experience of shooting was incredibly thrilling, although felt somewhat pressuring, weeks upon weeks of planning coming to fruition. The plot revolves around a kidnapped teen, and I will definitely post the final product here, as well as some articles on the post-production of film. What made the shooting so thrilling? About two weeks ago, as I was coming from a restaurant, I was in full-on film mode and noted an abandoned warehouse off the highway that was exactly what I had envisioned when making the script. I told my co-director about it and it was decided: we would film in said abandoned warehouse. It was a risk as to whether we could get in or not, and there could certainly be other problems, but it was too perfect to pass up.

When it came the day to eventually film I rushed to make the last revisions to the screenplay. I contacted Harrison, the other member of my crew, several times, getting props together at the last minute. We drove off to a friend's house for a trench knife for some authenticity and then on to the warehouse.

Driving up, my heart sank; a fence surrounded the compound. I looked to the top of the fense: barbed wire. We pulled off the highway and into the bumpy drive leading up to that dreadfully beautiful domain. It was perfect but there appeared to be no way in, maybe sneak under the gate, but doubtfully. We waited for our actors, Aaron and Bryan, both of whom had not read the script nor had they any indication as to what the film was about. I was eventually able to sneak in through a gap in the fence, where I was on the other side, confusing my unaware buddies as to how I had gotten in. We approached the building ahead and it was perfect. We weaved amongst the barren alleys of what was once a lumber yard and found the right building in which to shoot, one which was not too dark and yet relatively warm.

The problems we ran into while shooting were not too bad, but could have been avoided. The battery life in my camera ran low toward the end, causing rushed shooting at the day's end. By that time it was also starting to get dark. It was also freezing in the warehouse with no electricity, particularly after three hours of direction. The location was perfect throughout, though. And it was eerie being in a place that fit what we had storyboarded so well. We could have used our planning time more wisely and have better prepared our actors, but the film came out almost as good as if we had made preparations way ahead of time. Filming did feel arduous and the actors felt fatigued, but it was adrenaline pumping to pull a page from Werner Herzog's hand guide and do anything to make a film, whether it was trespassing in an abandoned warehouse or breaking down doors.

Emerson

The Process: Outlining and Inspiration

2010-02-24T18:39:00.001-08:00

I have this idea for a film that's basically a combination of the Man with No Name Trilogy and The Silence of the Lambs set in Ireland, and I've developed it pretty far in an outline and treatment. I've even gotten it to be almost similar to Kill Bill in that it could really all be one film but would work much better as two (not to mention Tarantino's two films are considered his take on the Man with No Name(I am so derivative)). I've finished the idea for the first film, but only really have the first and third act of the second film with no idea as to how to connect the two.

Besides this idea, the title of which I'm keeping to myself because of how simply ingenious it is, I have more than thirty quality ideas for films, all of which I would like to potentially at least write a screenplay for, and some of which I wish to develop. Out of those thirty some-odd ideas, I have written one feature-length screenplay (which I will make available to readers upon request), I have written a short version of one idea totaling about five pages which would serve as the film's beginning, I have written the first thirty pages of the novelization of one idea but not any of the screenplay, and I have written the first fifteen pages to a screenplay of another. I intend to shelf that last idea, as it is going absolutely nowhere as it currently exists and I could use time away from it. One of my New Years Resolutions was to write one script every six months, which would be two for the year and would push me properly into the habit of writing. The problem, however, lies in procrastination. I have been reading Steven Soderbergh's (The Girlfriend Experience, The Informant!) book which is journal of sorts combined with an interview with Richard Lester (A Hard Day's Night). It is apparent that screenwriters, and perhaps writers in general, have a great deal of trouble with the writing process, barely trudging on and hardly persevering through the pages. Soderbergh seems disheartened with each new page that he writes on the screen, although the book was written when he had a lot of troubles with studios. I feel his pain; inspiration is so difficult in writing. It's hard enough to formulate innovative ideas, but fully developing and realizing those ideas onto paper is a feat unlike any other. I know I will probably have trouble writing the second act of part two of my film idea and will put it off ad infinitum (this article alone is a prime example of procrastination) but I'll get it done, and it will be astounding work because I'm a great screenwriter. The idea will probably change a lot too, and probably for the better, but until actually finishing the work, a writer's worst enemy is self-confidence and the ubiquitous, instant ADD provided by the internet. I have certainly done a lot of research, which has furthered my idea into much more than it originally was, but the web works against me as much as it works for me. Plain and simple, writing sucks. The final product may be beautiful, but the process of placing a physical form on thought feels so tedious, especially when toiling on 90 pages of screenplay and accumulating over 350 bookmarks as "research." I'll sleep on it all and it'll come as an epiphany in a dream, but until then, I bid you adeu.

Emerson

Review: Shutter Island

2010-02-20T18:27:00.000-08:00

Martin Scorsese is a hit or miss director for me. Although it may seem unfair to the great director, he really only tells two kinds of narrative stories(of his films I have seen): those of crime(Boxcar Bertha, Goodfellas, The Departed) and those of insanity (Taxi Driver and Bringing Out the Dead). There are certainly other factors and simplifying it that much is a bit wrong, but really makes sense when viewing Shutter Island, a clear culmination of what Scorsese has thematically looked at before and forming a new view of that.

Shutter Island begins quite abruptly, Leonardo DiCaprio's character Ted Daniels is in an uncomfortable situation, one that represents his ultimate fear, one that envelops him during his stay on the eponymous island. DiCaprio acts quite well in a role that places him in a time similar to last year's Revolutionary Road. The actor has certainly grown across his career, finally becoming worthy of the leading man role for which he has been known. Mark Ruffalo, who I used to think was a poor man's Vincent D'Onofrio (any comparison to D'Onofrio is still a compliment), still really remains as such, but that is more the role than the actor himself. Ben Kingsley remains a top notch performer, as do many of the more minor supporting actors, from brief yet surprisingly striking performances by Jackie Earle Haley (Watchmen) and Elias Koteas (Crash), both of whom definitely deserve more attention for their intense acting skills.

Scorsese's story is that of the typical police procedural film, detailing a detective's process in solving a mystery. Scorsese, however adds an impressive amount of factors to throw at main character Ted Daniels and his partner Chuck. Weaving elements of horror, thrillers, and action, the film ultimately comes down to the ever-popular "mindfuck" film, bending the perception of the audience. This has caused the film to have parallels drawn to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. While Shutter Island is certainly not The Shining, it is certainly an impressive work, exemplifying all of Scorsese's editing tricks and filming techniques, while inquiring into the viewer's mind and stretching the thought process. Shutter Island poses as a work of art, a subjective piece acting as a litmus test to see what kind of person each individual viewer is based on his or her individual reactions to the film's points. The story is not all that clear at times, and for some viewers may be confusing. For audiences that do understand it, it will be a well lauded feature.

Scorsese's camera work is really at its best. His use of an incredible amount of dutch angles is purposeful and jarring, as is his use of high angles and general tendency towards a grim, overbearing mise en scene which is complimented by the score. The editing defies certain rules of the trade, but it is all with a motive, pressing the viewer to question what is real. This adds to the film's best part; it is really not about the story itself, but rather the philosophy and psychology to it. This somewhat takes away from certain sub-plots, but increases the audience's thought process to one that is much more active, something that is crucial to making a film enjoyable. Shutter Island will divide audiences; that's an undeniable fact, but Scorsese unfortunately does not leave any hints which point directly one way or the other. The film's climax is also a bit of a letdown, as it is a tad predictable for a film which purports to have a twisty atmosphere. Scorsese could have made a second climax, similar to that of Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo, and I waited for that to come but was left disappointed.

Shutter Island is a very satisfying film, returning to what Scorsese does best while also branching out a bit into unfamiliar territory. It has everything that makes a film good in my book, save for one scene where the color timing goes way off, but other than that it all works well. The trailer may be seen here, and Shutter Island is currently in theaters, so be sure to not miss out on this opportunity and go see it.

Emerson

Review: Up in the Air

2010-02-15T16:20:00.000-08:00

Walter Kirn is one of my favorite authors. He is, at least in a way, one of the reasons I am a film buff. He wrote a book entitled Thumbsucker, and that got turned into a film. After I first saw that, I ventured into reading all of Kirn's books, all of which are among my favorites. Walter Kirn's Up in the Air was recently adapted into a film by Thank You for Smoking director Jason Reitman.

Up in the Air begins much like Reitman's feature debut, also an adaptation, with imagery directly related to the film set to a somewhat cathartic song. Reitman has not developed all that much as a director since his first film, but that is because he has not had to. Reitman's films have already garnered notice and their mainstream indie appeal is a real hit in the industry. The director, in Up in the Air, has continued that streak of success by once again adapting a novel about a man in a very unique field which causes him to be hated by many. That man is Ryan Bingham, played by the love him or hate him George Clooney. I am a fan, I'll admit, so this review may be mired by my sheer fangasm at a favorite author(Kirn makes a cameo), actor, and director all in one concoction of a feature, but I shall attempt to maintain objectivity.

I was so awfully disappointed in the film's first act that I nearly lost all hope. The first act's tone is incredibly dissimilar to that of the rest of the film. This is mostly due to the fact that the theme is not evident until a good way into the film. The resilience with which this theme is presented is what saved the movie in my mind, creating another plane of thought regarding the depth of its message. There are a great number of changes made to Kirn's original book, but the framework is still largely there, with Reitman having added to make the story his just as much as Kirn's. This respect for a writer is nearly unparalleled in the industry, with original writers generally getting shafted entirely, considering their work to be mangled beyond recognition. So Reitman's film, past the first twenty or so minutes, is a breath of fresh air to Hollywood.

The supporting parts in the film are each played admirably. Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick are each outstanding actresses, especially amongst a field in the industry today of mediocre lookers. Jason Bateman, J.K. Simmons, Zach Galifianakis, and Danny McBride do not necessarily add to the film, but they certainly do not hurt, each of them top notch comedians proving somewhat more dramatic chops. The films color is composed of many blues, an entrepreneurial navy that is both fitting and consistent, a cool contrast to the warm shades of both Thank You for Smoking and Juno. Its shallow focus is also astounding in adding to Bingham's isolation from the world. His denial is at times frustrating, but his clarity comes as an epiphany, a near religious experience who resolves to become the dynamic man others had been hoping he would become, only to be rejected in many facets of his life. The tragedy of Ryan Bingham is furthered by Clooney's superb performance. The film's editing is, for a drama, a full force rush into the audience, pummeling emotion into the iris of the viewer.

The most unfortunate part in all this is that I wrote a feature-length script which was somewhat inspired by Kirn's novel last year; it was about a man with obsessive compulsive disorder who is hired out by companies to fire their employees. I never really expected it to be realized on the screen, but now it all feels rather silly having exerted all of that into something which will never come into fruition because of the similarity to Reitman's Up in the Air. I now know what writers feel when their work is not published or greenlit. Reitman's film is an excellent look into humanity and relations, and it is one of the most personal films I have seen in a long time. Up in the Air is definitely a great drama and should be enjoyed by appreciators of Reitman's filmography. Give the trailer a look here.

Emerson

Review: Extract

2010-02-15T12:20:00.000-08:00

Filmmaker Mike Judge got his start in the industry with "Beavis and Butt-Head." He moved on to make one of the most memorable comedy films of the 90s, Office Space. Since that time, Judge has not been up to much, having spent most of his time on "King of the Hill" as both producer and writer. Feature-wise, Judge brought out the constantly delayed and often funny Idiocracy. Most recently, the comedy great had the film Extract come out, one of the final blows to Miramax.

Extract stars Jason Bateman as Joel, a self-made man who ignites a series of events for himself at home and his job that create the films conflicts. Joel owns and operates an extract plant which he started on his own, but Joe also very often makes stupid decisions, burying himself in a proverbial hole. It may be flawed writing, but it is certainly entertaining. Judge has drawn characters out that are suited to each of the actors and actresses who play them, with a great cast that includes Bateman, Mila Kunis, Kristen Wiig, Ben Affleck, J.K. Simmons, Clifton Collins Jr., and David Koechner. The impeccable cast members work off of each other very well, many of whom perform at the top of their game.

The best part of Extract is how carefully it seems to subvert the standards of this kind of comedy and draws upon farcical humor, while also coming off as surprising. Judge maintaints a sense of reality within the film, while also having a very slight tendency toward the absurd, suggesting that real life is a bit strange at times. Even Ben Affleck, whose reputation as an actor is dubious at best, performs well.

Extract simply works. Its errors are few and far-between and are all overshadowed by great, simple comedy. It is one good film for enjoying a quick laugh, especially for fans of Judge's material, although it works for many audiences. Extract is worth a viewing for the laughter it provides, from snickers to belly laughs. View the trailer here.

Emerson

The Process: Story Ideas and Dreams Part 9

2010-02-15T07:06:00.000-08:00

In case you have actually been following along, no, there are not eight previous parts that you missed, just bear with me.

In my psychology class we have recently been learning about dreams. We have about four or so a night, we just rarely remember all of them, if any. Dreams are also a way for a person to organize his or her thoughts for the day. This explains why you may have an earth-shattering problem when you go to sleep, but when you wake up, the solution is crystal clear. "But Emerson," you inquire, "this is a movie blog. What do dreams have to do with your sexy knowledge?"

About two years ago, I had a dream about an incredibly corrupt president, farther gone than any person should go (Worse than Bush, if you can believe it!). I had also had an idea that revolved around a religious storyline, but had problems figuring out where it would go. So I made the genius decision to combine the idea from the dream with the already existing plot and expand from there. Two years later, and I only have about thirty pages of a book, with only a vague idea of where it should go. People all to often mistakenly use dreams as inspiration for ideas that really do not work (See: Twilight).

My final dream from last night was fascinating. I am not entirely sure why, but I went to see Star Trek. It was a new take on the series, a reboot of sorts, after last year's lackluster film. But this film had nothing to do with Star Trek. Instead it was a vampire film starring Sean William Scott as a vile vampire, seeking out blood in a diner. It was horrifying as a dream. Mild-mannered people wielded knives in their own defense, but were helpless in front of Scott's growing army. The plot was a look at a very isolated incident, only focusing on the issue at hand, as dreams generally do. The film concluded with a woman killing Scott's vampire and having most of the rest of his army destroyed. I clearly remember staying with the rest of the audience after all of this in anticipation of the credits. The film's epilogue hinted at a sequel with the same woman as a futuristic pulp detective-type character; her partner a good clone of Sean William Scott's character from the original, with "the virus not yet in effect". Most interestingly, this sequence ended with a roman numeral IX(9) over a futuristic landscape, suggesting it was not a linear sequel. "Well, damn", I thought when I awoke, "I need to make that movie." Fear not, because I am not going to make that movie.

After a few minutes of being awake, I started remembering my other dreams. One involved a lame prank played on me at my school. The other that I remember involved asking out a girl in one of my classes. What boring tales. Who wants to see my life as a movie? What gives an edge to Sean William Scott's vampiritic Star Trek? Nothing. Dreams are nonsense. Making sense of them is futile most of the time. Dreams have only been "adapted" into film by the surrealists (See: Un Chien Andalou, Eraserhead), and those have hardly compared to what a dream does for an individual. But the dream did give me insight into something else; that number IX really hit me. Why doesn't Hollywood do sequels that way for once? Why can't films leave many gaps from story to story and let us attempt to do the filling in? I, for one, would enjoy the detective work required to piece together the fragments, as long as the proper hints were left. Even though my dream Star Trek will never come into fruition, I will certainly allow it to affect my process of filmmaking, being more mindful of structure and time gaps amongst a franchise.

And what of my more sensible dreams? I can imagine that there was some meaning or lesson I could take from them. Dreams cannot tell the future, but they do help with making future decisions. I'll just hope I don't get pranked when I go back to school tomorrow and that the ladies come flocking, because I'll be prepared.

Emerson

Review: Boxcar Bertha

2010-02-13T15:37:00.000-08:00

Martin Scorsese is a legendary filmmaker who hardly needs an introduction. The man's directorial career spans from 1967's Who's That Knocking at My Door to this month's Shutter Island. In between that time, the man's prolific filmography includes Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Bringing Out the Dead, The Departed, and dozens more. Boxcar Bertha was Scorsese's second feature-length effort.

Boxcar Bertha centers around the eponymous Bertha and several of her male friends, the main one of whom is Big Bill Shelly, played by the late David Carradine. Carradine and Barbara Hershey, who plays Bertha, have good chemistry with each other, but Scorsese's tale is all too similar to the much more interesting Bonnie and Clyde. I have admittedly never been a very big fan of Scorsese's films, particularly because of how drawn out they are and limited they are to only one kind of storytelling. It's no wonder the director veered away from using a female-centered story, as Bertha is a rather boring, static character. Her male supports seem to be much more powerful than her, until at one point they are captured, with Bertha successfully fleeing. However, when they are all reunited, Bertha is once again the damsel in distress. Scorsese does not tell stories very effectively with a woman protagonist. The film feels very limited as a result of this, and its build is not all that exciting, and the climax is too little too late. Boxcar Bertha is a shining example of how much Scorsese has grown, and I know now why he is so highly regarded, because since his early days, he has really come into his own, operating a monopoly over the crime genre. Boxcar Bertha is too feeble an attempt at this, and while it does bring up racial and political issues from the times, they begin feeling forced after being shoved down the viewer's throat relentlessly. Only the biggest Scorsese fans will enjoy Boxcar Bertha, but more from a fanboy joy than a true appreciation of the film.

Emerson

Review: The Squid and the Whale

2010-02-12T20:43:00.000-08:00

As Noah Baumbach's 2005 feature The Squid and the Whale was coming to a close, I thought to myself, "This man is the next Wes Anderson," and sure enough, as the credits rolled, Wes Anderson was credited as a producer. Baumbach's film, although not as detailed with the aspects of each frame, is a definitive indie film, capturing the nitty-gritty awkward soul of a 1980s divorce that still holds true today.

The material itself is probably too close to home for me to remain objective in my attempt at an academic account of the work, but I shall attempt to do my best. Noah Baumbach creates a realistic, darkly funny look at divorce. The Squid and the Whale opens on a title card that is all too similar to that of German expressionist F.W. Murnau's Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, and this could hardly be a coincidence given the thematic similarities between the two. But Baumbach hardly weaves an expressionist film, more a sardonic tale of love lost, differing from Murnau's in that it is never to be found again, at least not in the same way. The film is rather short, being just over 70 minutes in length, but seems to last much longer. This is usually not acceptable for me, but I was enthralled by the characters and wanted to spend as much time with them as humanly possible. Jeff Daniels and Jesse Eisenberg are each astounding in their roles as father and son, respectively. Their emotional issues entangled into one are echoes of issues that strike a chord with me, although that does not mean I have the issues these characters have, rather that they resonate with me on some level. The film also has a good sense of humor, with the characters constantly making off the cuff remarks and speaking frankly with each other, awkward mannerisms in tow. This was a large part of where the film is similar to Wes Anderson's pictures, particularly The Royal Tennenbaums, bearing the tale of a separated family. It also has a soundtrack to please any Anderson fan, and a visual look which resembles Anderson's Bottle Rocket.

The Squid and the Whale is unexpectedly gross at times, but these moments are both humorous and highly emotional, revealing what the characters really feel. The story is edited seamlessly, flowing together and supplementing the mood of the picture. I was somewhat caught off guard by how incredibly disarming the flick was to me, nearly bringing me to tears in the films final moments. The story simply works and is all executed perfectly. I suppose it would appeal more to those who have dealt with divorce and can understand it on that level, but it really has a lot to offer in many different regards. I am now definitely looking forward to Baumbach's next film Greenberg, starring Ben Stiller. Be sure to give The Squid and the Whale a chance and give that trailer a peek here.

Emerson

Review: 9

2010-02-12T18:55:00.000-08:00

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Just a bunch of numbers. After seeing Shane Acker's film 9 however, these numbers each have a meaning. The film 9 was originally a short film, bearing the same name. It ended up getting nominated for the Oscar for best animated short, some big names noticed, and allowed the mythology to continue into a feature length film. I am certainly glad he was given that opportunity.

The movie follows the titular nine mysterious figures throughout a post-apocalyptic wasteland, as the do battle with machines in a steam-punk-like environment. This provides for many adventurous situations, all occurring in the span of less than an hour and fifteen minutes of screen time. This film achieved "cinematography" that was quite advanced for an animated feature, something Pixar has been trying at, with only some success, for years. The film has no proverbial fat, covering all that is necessary without getting caught up in unnecessary, extraneous details. It also creates a high level of emotional appeal with the characters, who, when thinking about it, are really just sacks of string, and yet are incredibly engaging. This is strengthened by the cast of apt actors, some of whom are veteran voice actors.

The feature is only the fourth computer animated film ever to be rated PG-13. It somewhat deserves this rating, as some of the action sequences build in tension, but the film has a real message covering a vast array of themes, ranging from man's over-reliance on technology, the ghost in the machine, and the devastation caused by war. It does not force these ideals on the viewers and rather allows those watching to select what they take from their own individual viewing experience, allowing for true subjectivity within the audience. This generally only stirs up debate regarding a film, but plot-wise, the film is clear-cut and delivers a satisfying conclusion. I was also impressed by the sound editing of the film, as animation films have audio built from scratch, so to speak. The score is whimsical and reflective of the fantasy involved within the feature. This utilization of sound as a method of extending the setting into reality and creating an additional eeriness works quite well and is a further example of 9's improvements over Pixar's computer animation process. I praise Shane Acker for his work on this feature, as well as the producers for making it possible, and suggest 9 to all audiences, as it offers a universal appeal. Check out the trailer here.

Emerson

Review: Gladiator

2010-02-12T17:06:00.001-08:00

Ridley Scott is brother of director Tony Scott(See True Romance review). Ridley is the more prominent, blockbuster-y of the two action directors. Ridley Scott's 2000 film Gladiator won best picture for that year at the Oscars. I'm rarely one to agree with the Oscars, and this case is no different.

Gladiator tells the tale of Maximus Decimus (Russell Crowe) a former Roman General turned enslaved gladiator through a series of unfortunate occurrences, guided by Commodus, played by the "retired" master Joaquin Phoenix. The two have tension building throughout the film, leading to a final showdown in the end. I am not one to give spoilers away, but given the obvious nature of this film, it is clear what comes next throughout its entirety. The feature, which runs a little less than three hours, is all too standard of a tale of revenge to be garnering awards, much less nominations. Gladiator certainly has something to say on the brutality of war and the difference between that and brutality in entertainment, but it stops there. The feature is all on the surface and is suffocatingly explicit in its tale of rebellion against a tyrannical ruler. The battle scenes are mostly unfulfilling, giving audiences only brief glimpses at what a true soldier is made of, thus only providing a caricature of the eponymous protagonist. The story is one that has been told time and time again, and effort seems to be made to tell it in exactly the same way. Ridley Scott only provides viewers with a few fascinating shots, but by the time they have come and gone, boredom is in full effect.

Joaquin Phoenix is an incredibly likable man, and so his portrayal of the wicked Commodus is the best part of Gladiator. Phoenix truly stretches his boundaries by furthering himself as an actor and not limiting himself to the confines of a weak script. Sure the film is littered with inaccuracies, but that is not what matters. The feature is brought down by its all-around average method of storytelling and mostly ordinary visuals in a setting that has so much more to offer. Gladiator is limited by itself, restricted to Ridley Scott's star vehicle for Russell Crowe, in a film that certainly had potential at one point. The film is the definition of a letdown, mired by its own possibilities. I generally am one to not hold any expectations, and what few expectations I had for this feature were obliterated by a film that feels like it was directed by a Hollywood studio and lacks all artistic value. Gladiator is not a film that is worth a viewer's time, as it brings together a boring story and keeps it dull.

Emerson

Review: True Romance

2010-02-12T12:43:00.000-08:00

Tony Scott. Quentin Tarantino. Two giants of their craft, but each in different regards. Tarantino is the B-movie turned A-plus, the rain of bad decisions made by criminals, and the empowerment of women. Tony Scott is the action movie, brute in force, nothing more, nothing less. Quentin Tarantino, before he became renowned as a director with such classics as Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill, would work as a screenwriter, making scripts for others to produce, perhaps most famously with Natural Born Killers, directed by Oliver Stone. The same was done with 1993's True Romance, a film about the relationship between a down-trodden man and his call-girl soul mate.

Christian Slater stars as Clarence, the formerly mentioned man. Slater performs well, and is just one of the many examples of why the film works so well: it has one a cast which exceeds that of most other films without becoming an ensemble in which attention is driven away from one primary story. But this causes one of the film's flaws; characters are introduced and only brought back one scene later, an obvious method of simply bringing in obstacles to add to the film's rising action for the characters to deal with. The characters are very enjoyable for the most part, with astounding performances all around by Slater, Patricia Arquette, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, Gary Oldman, Michael Rapaport, Tom Sizemore, Chris Penn, and James Gandolfini. One of the best scenes in recent memory occurs between acting juggernauts Hopper and Walken as the two match wits. True Romance is a really fun experience and a different take on the telling of romance that subverts all possible expectations.

The story was edited much too linear for an early Tarantino film, but it really is Scott's film and that is made apparent by the tone. Hans Zimmer's awkward score only really fits the final scene, but is laid out throughout the entirety of the feature and really detracts from some events, confusing the viewer emotionally. The film's climax is also muddled with cinematography problems, the largest of which is that Scott relies solely on close ups for the entire scene, causing confusion and goes off track from the appeal of a bloody battle. The writing is really where True Romance shines, and it is somewhat unfortunate that Tarantino was unable to direct the picture himself, but the cast which Tony Scott was able to bring together more than makes up for this. I also noted several moments which bear similarities to Tarantino's later films, so it is interesting to view Tarantino's pride in writing this and his sensibilities which were obvious from so early in his career. The film also seems to progress in a somewhat strange fashion, as mentioned before about the characters facing other characters as obstacles and merely overcoming them in minutes. There is a need for an overarching antagonist for the protagonists to constantly be at odds with, thus increasing the pure volume of the action, without having too much of an obvious, predictable structure. I was also lucky enough to have seen the film's unrated version, which I have been made aware is the best version available. True Romance's flaws are minute and easily gotten over when considering the sheer mastery of the final product. Give the film a viewing, and watch its trailer here.

Emerson

Review: Gamer

2010-02-11T13:08:00.000-08:00

Cinematic duos: the Wachowskis, the Coen Brothers, the Hughes Brothers, and now Neveldine/Taylor. The dynamic duo brought us such efforts as the balls off the walls hitman flick Crank and its even more bizarre sequel, Crank 2: High Voltage. The first was an astounding film and remains one of my favorites, but the sequel was a bit much. Gamer makes better on these two directors' promise for ultimate insanity.

Gamer's opening sequence is a slight introduction into what the entire film holds in store for audiences: video game violence realized in the real world. The film takes advantage of satire and irony in that it is a hyper-violent, hyper-sexualized look into the overexposure of future forms of entertainment media, each of which serve as a allegory for modern society. And this extreme violence utilized by the filmmakers is gripping and thrilling, while diverting from Crank in that it is a film with a true story to tell, while sticking to and furthering the parallels to video games that were so apparent in the two's feature debut. Also of note is the storytelling ability that Neveldine/Taylor possess. They make due on the promise of a guttural action flick, while defying audience expectations and releasing a film that is both personal and worldly.

Gamer is the story of a software programmer, Ken Castle, played by Michael C. Hall, who viewers will recognize as TV's "Dexter." Castle is the creator of two prominent programs which blur the line between reality and gaming for its players, Society and Slayers. Society is the future equivalent of The Sims, a real-world simulation, But Neveldine/Taylor have appropriately shown that real society would corrupt this limitless opportunity by engaging in fetishistic relations through others. Slayers is a way for gamers to "play" through death row inmates, perceived as ruthless, modern gladiatorial combatants. Kable is the hero of Slayers, an "icon" of the bloodsport who is three matches away from gaining his freedom. Kable is played by the always bad-ass Gerard Butler, who does a mediocre job in his performance. But Gamer is not about the acting, it is about the beautifully arranged action scenes, resembling Black Hawk Down on Crank's Chinese cocktail. And the feature is incredibly well edited, simulating Slayers as if it were going down live in front of our own eyes, judging the viewer's reactions to the incredibly violent imagery, filmed on RED handheld cameras.

If I have a problem with Gamer, it would certainly be the acting, but it is palatable, sharing a bit of a similarity in mind to Southland Tales in this regard, as well as its over-bearing, stimulation-required view of the not-so-distant future. The film has its share of strange moments, but is much more grounded than Crank 2. The team has been working on comic adaptation Jonah Hex, which will hopefully be a full return, or complete departure, to the directors' best film. I could truly and surprisingly analyze the film in all its deep glory for a good, long time. I even have a bit of a conspiracy theory regarding Keith David's character as evidence of the film's slight twist but will save that for myself. Gamer is an insightful film regarding a large field of topics, but a large portion of this is up to the viewer's interpretation. If you fancy yourself a quick action film, Gamer will suffice, but if you search for more in your film experiences, then this is one gem that will be overlooked because of its campy aspects. Check out Gamer and give the trailer a view here.

Emerson

Review: Låt den rätte komma in (Let the Right One In)

2010-02-09T15:54:00.000-08:00

Let the Right One In is a Swedish film from 2008. It's a vampire film, and a somewhat romantic look at the vampire, but it is still definitely a horror movie; this is not Twilight by any stretch of the imagination. The flick was directed by Tomas Alfredson, with it being his first major international hit. And what a hit it has been! The film has drawn a good deal of coverage because of its unexpected popularity. But is this success legitimate, or is it merely manufactured via hype? Let's find out.

Let the Right One In is the tale of a 12 year old Swedish boy and the friendship he has with the new girl in his apartment building. This new girl represents hope for our protagonist, as he is bullied and constantly abused by some of his classmates. And this new girl is a vampire. Do not expect to see her turn into a bat or anything cheesy like that, though, as this take on vampires has changes, all of which are really for the better and benefit the film. Sure it's not the campy Dracula we know and love, but it's a frightening new look at a classic character type. And the characters are interesting, save for a mostly unimportant sub-plot. This sub-plot, however, yields one of the film's best moments, so all is clearly forgiven. The visual effects are convincing and horrifying, with most of the film's moments requiring a good amount of quality work put into them. The end of the film is the icing on the cake, and any viewers who, for some reason or another, begin doubting the film need only wait for its climax.

The shots in Let the Right One In are composed on the level of a cinematic master at times. This mise en scene gives layered meaning to the film and improves the viewing experience. At times the film's grain level is quite high, something which is truly wonderful and can be appreciated, as many modern films stray away from such a "dirty" look. And yet there are many pristine shots, showcasing the Swedish landscape draped in snow. I also enjoyed the worn out whites which were used and how much red stood out in many scenes. Let the Right One In is a film which will challenge viewers and get the moral compass flying all about the place. It is too bad the film is being remade in America as Let Me In, a feature that is sure to be a way of simply cashing off of a better foreign film(although I'll reserve most judgments until I actually see it).

The film also has quite good acting considering the leads are children, each in their debut roles. Let the Right One In is both beautifully horrifying and well constructed, a true culmination of technical effort in storytelling ability along with an appreciation for aesthetics. Those who are averse to horror because of fear will not find too much trouble with this film, either, as it is truly appealing to many different demographics. Consider giving this one a look, and check out the trailer here.

Emerson

Review: La Battaglia di Algeri (The Battle of Algiers)

2010-02-09T13:33:00.000-08:00

The Battle of Algiers was made in 1966 about the revolution in Algeria over the colonialist French. And the film is made surprisingly balanced, considering it was commissioned by the Algerian government. It expresses ideals of liberation and dreams equality quite well, particularly through the wonderful score of Ennio Morricone. His score is where a majority of the movement is felt in the film and drives the emotion. But in this sense, a good deal of the emotion is forced upon audiences, trying to get to the bottom of terrorism by feeling sympathy for said terrorists. Unfortunately, the math is not that simple and neither are viewers' minds. Their is a line between good and evil and the film seeks to convince audiences that this line is blurred across the entire spectrum. While I do feel for the Algerian people throughout the film, the happiness expressed by those who are unknowingly about to be bombed is too much, and that is where the fault of the film lies.

The fact that the film was done in black and white is a bit obvious, but it adds to the storytelling, the harsh contrast between the colors reflecting the contrast between each side. The camerawork is well done, and focus is truly utilized as an art, but the characters in the film are never prominent, not even Colonel Mathieu, who leads the French side, or Ali La Pointe, who leads the Algerian ultra-left groups. The martyrdom in the film comes off as stupid, juvenile attempts at playground skirmishes rather than a full on rebellion, and this causes the movie's largest weakness: it's simply boring to watch. At two hours, the film is edited unevenly, causing a feeling of gaps in time and making the film feel as though it drudges on for days. I would not recommend watching The Battle of Algiers unless you are truly a history buff already interested in the subject. Although some of it does ring true for today, as their is a good deal of talk on the ethics of both terrorism and torture, it feels like too disjointed and incomplete an effort to be a worthy film for the Internet Movie Database Top 250 films ever. I will concede that the feature was well made, posing as a narrative documentary, but its editing problems are all to present for the duration of the film to even consider as a good film.

Emerson

Review: Taken

2010-02-09T09:22:00.000-08:00

The French do action much better. There is no question about that. I first became familiar with Pierre Morel in 2004's District B13, one of the best action films I've ever seen, and the film that basically ignited the parkour craze. This is a classic man's action film and the trailer can be viewed here. Recently, the French director released From Paris with Love. He is also slated to direct the newest adaptation of Dune. Prior to all of this directorial success, Morel was cinematographer for other action films brought to us by non-Americans, including modern classic The Transporter and the intense Unleashed. But in between all of that, the French have brought us Taken.

Taken stars Liam Neeson as a father on the edge after his daughter is kidnapped while abroad. I do not wish to ruin the specifics of the story, but it reminded me of film guru David Mamet's 2004 film Spartan. Taken, however, differs in that it is a revenge film about a father on the war path. And Neeson delivers well, proving his acting dexterity as both a dramatist and truly enjoyable performer. The story, written by Luc Besson(who has brought us just about every internationally-lauded French film from the last two decades), is at times predictable, but is thorough and well-written enough for predictability to not really be an issue. The dialogue never comes off as cliche or trite, which is sometimes an issue with action films. The fights are each well choreographed and fully adrenaline pumping, which is helped by the fluid editing which makes all of the action both fast paced and clear, unlike the Bourne films.

A large portion of the film is shocking, and the film comes off as a mature, rated R film, but it bears the PG-13 rating. It is enjoyable without having much in the way bloodshed, and the film does not suffer as a result, a true accomplishment by today's hyperviolent standards. Neeson's character of Bryan Mills is like James Bond meets John McClane, an everyman pushed far past the edge on an all too personal, gut wrenching mission. He is also both cunning and very improvisational in each action sequence, proving that he is a worthy cinematic character. When it comes down to it, Taken is even better than some of these films because it is merely stand-alone and not reliant on some built-up franchise/empire for studios to suck money off of until the story is well past being dry and contrived (See: Live Free or Die Hard). A sequel is in the works, but hopefully it is done properly. Also important, is the story's ability to translate emotion to the viewer and express the pure pain running through Mills's blood on his quest to save the only thing in the world he cares about. American action filmmakers should take note of what the French have been up to, it's certainly an improvement over the standard popcorn-munching fare that we have become used to and is really a wake up call for film as a whole. Check out the trailer here.

Emerson

Review: Assassination of a High School President

2010-02-08T16:00:00.000-08:00

Continuing a theme back from my Cold Souls review, Assassination of a High School President is the feature debut of director Brett Simon. The film went straight-to-DVD in October of last year, but let that in no way influence your opinion of it. Starring in the flick are actors Reece Thompson and the always perfect Bruce Willis, along with actress Mischa Barton.

Assassination of a High School President follows the exploits of high school investigative journalist Bobby Funke. The film follows the set-up of a classic noir; there's the dame, the hard woven case, and the numerous plaster-molded suspects. But where Assassination differs is that it is a lighter fare, somewhat resembling Greg Mottola's severely underrated comedy from last year, Adventureland. Now, this is not the first time the noir film has been set in a modern high school; that was first achieved, at least to my knowledge, in Rian Johnson's Brick, a personal favorite of mine. Assassination certainly bears some similarities to that 2005 film, but is largely its own monster entirely. What makes the film so astounding, is its ability to balance tone, keeping distance between the drama and comedy and having been written with appropriate timing in mind. The cinematography is good enough for what it is, but it would have been much more interesting to have it done even more stylistically. The editing is also appropriate and is at times even impressive, considering that this is a straight-to-DVD comedy.

Bruce Willis provides a supporting role as the principal of the titular high school, a former military man who draws parallels to The Simpson's Principal Skinner. He is, however, a much more controlling figure, and Willis plays the part, as expected, quite well. Willis's experience as a veteran actor amongst relative newbies, however, largely goes unnoticed, as each player is generally able to hold his or her own. Mischa Barton is not anything to take note of, but her character was written quite well, so her average performance is mostly covered up by the much larger issues at play.

Much like any film noir, the main character is a detective or detective-like figure, whose mind we are allowed into for a majority of the film, helping us to piece the puzzle right along with him. This allows the character of Bobby Funke, who may come off as awkward in the first several minutes of the movie, to grow on us and become the well-developed suave journo that the writers intended. I was also impressed with the film's sensibilities regarding high school life. It rings very true for me, and my school is in many ways dissimilar to the urbane private school featured within the film. Assassination of a High School President is an excellent starting movie for those unfamiliar with film noir and one that I fear will be all to often overlooked. It is for this reason that I highly recommend this film as one whose plot twists and turns without losing any of the audience's attention, and whose characters are truly enjoyable people. Check out the trailer here.

Emerson

Review: The Double Life of Veronique

2010-02-07T19:45:00.000-08:00

Famed Polish director Krzysztof Kieslowski was said, by Stanley Kubrick himself, to have made the only epic of our times, a series of films on the Ten Commandments entitled The Decalogue. Following the release of that series, Kieslowski got his debut outside of Poland with The Double Life of Veronique.

Veronique is a rising singer in Poland. Veronique is also a music teacher in France. But don't confuse this plot with one of intrigue and suspense. No, Kieslowski's drama film deals with identity and dichotomy, the both of which are largely blurred. The cinematography is a true marvel. Kieslowski achieves shots that bend the mind, both in extreme and subtlety. The subjective lens through which the film operates under for a good portion of time expresses the depths of each Veronique. And while the rising action of the film can be confusing at times, it has a climax which seeks to console all viewers who were previously befuddled.

The sound editing for the film supplements the camerawork, working in both extremes and subtleties, sometimes even terrifying the viewer. The Polish Veronique's singing is a harsh lullaby, her voice a deep bass with an effeminate quality in its background, causing a great deal of harmony amongst the films many wondrously arranged sounds. The mise en scene is also stupefying, it's amber and worn yellow colors in both Poland and France suggesting that no matter where a person is, everything and everywhere is ultimately the same. The films messages on love and loss are endearing and original. I urge readers of this blog to check out The Double Life of Veronique and to take note of the astounding angles and technical prowess through which Kieslowski portrays grief and affection, sometimes all at once. This was the first Kieslowski film I was exposed to, and intend to bring reviews of his Three Colors Trilogy, as well as The Decalogue, and delve further in this somewhat obscure great's filmography.

Emerson

Review: Cold Souls

2010-02-06T15:46:00.000-08:00

Cold Souls stars acting great Paul Giamatti as Paul Giamatti. This is certainly not the first time an actor or actress has played a fictionalized version of his or herself. Bruce Willis played himself in Steven Soderbergh's Ocean's 12, while Julia Roberts lampooned herself opposite Willis. Bruce Campbell's cult fanbase got the opportunity to see the big-chined man direct himself as himself in 2008's My Name is Bruce (Fans can look for the sequel in which the B-movie legend takes on Frankenstein sometime soon). But most importantly to Cold Souls, John Malkovich portrayed a version of himself in Spike Jonze's Being John Malkovich. Giamatti's portrayal of himself in Cold Souls is not only reminiscent of that cinema masterpiece, but also of some of writer Charlie Kaufman's other works, including Adaptation. and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The plot involves a psuedoscience method by which doctors are able to relieve any willing patients of their souls through extremely experimental methods. The film is not sci-fi in the least, however, and more involves the bioethics and humanistic aspect of such a situation. This is where I see it as paralleling Michel Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. And then there is Giamatti's struggle as an actor, dealing with a project behind him; a bit of a strech, but Kaufman's influence on Cold Souls's director Sophie Barthes is apparent. The film is acceptable, as it is not entirely derivative and deviates into highly philosophical depths. It is every bit as sardonic as any Kaufman film with more satire, and the victim of the derision is society as a whole at times. It is the self-conscious protagonist, however, who creates all of the drama involved within the film, causing audiences to shift between a love for Giamatti and an empathetic view of his character, and ultimately the actor himself. The question drawn when viewing a film in which an actor plays himself is apparent: is Giamatti really like this? Well whatever the answer may be, his acting is superb, and it is funny for me to see him in a film so similar to that of Charlie Kaufman's, as I always saw Giamatti as the only possible person to play Charlie and Donald Kaufman besides Nicolas Cage in Adaptation.

The film's technical achievement is certainly there, but Barthes allows it, a majority of the time, to take a back seat to the acting. The mise en scene provides a look into the sterile doctor's office, and humorous situations are well written. My issue lies only in the pacing of the film, as it is only approximately 100 minutes, but drudges on to feel much longer, primarily due to the at times purposeless editing. There is room for condensing, but a rather big part of screentime is filled up with useful scenes, so it is a largely excusable. Also impressive is the fact that this was the feature debut of Barthes, so I certainly see her going on to do bigger, better things. Cold Souls is enjoyable and harrowing, even to the point of frustration. But this frustration is merely cinematic evocation redeemed in the end without a cliche ending. More than anything, Cold Souls really got me thinking beyond normal, daily thought, and expounding upon its limited existential ideas expressed, allowing for a truly cerebral film, without being a full "thinking man's movie". This allows the viewer to get comfortable with the characters and grow with them, allowing for a large amount of joy within the movie's many great scenes.

At the background of Cold Souls, there seem to be many complex ideas at work, most of which will be lost on the viewer. It is somewhat referential, allowing for a deeper experience. Cold Souls is also, in this viewer's opinion, a film making some large political statements about post-Cold War relations, the current economic crisis, acting in general, and the moods and emotions experienced across society. But it's most important message and theme overall is the importance of the individual and that one person staying true to who he or she is. Definitely give this film a viewing and check out the trailer here.

Emerson

Rant: Color/Why I Don't Like Awards & Award Shows

2010-02-06T08:10:00.000-08:00

The nominees for 2009's "best" films were only just recently announced. Those nominees may be found here. The categories are, as follows:
Best Motion Picture of the Year
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Best Achievement in Directing
Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
Best Achievement in Cinematography
Best Achievement in Editing
Best Achievement in Art Direction
Best Achievement in Costume Design
Best Achievement in Makeup
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song
Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Best Achievement in Visual Effects
Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
Best Documentary, Features
Best Documentary, Short Subjects
Best Short Film, Animated
Best Short Film, Live Action
That's twenty-four categories. Twenty-four categories spread over a three hour event. And let's not forget the technical award night, of which footage is shown at the Oscars. Then there are the montages of those lost from the previous year and song and dance numbers from nominees, along with the monologue by the host. This coming year we can look forward to hosts Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, two gentlemen with whom I do not really have any qualms. But take a look at those categories. And check out the IMDb link. Does it seem as though the inclusion of ten nominees this year is completely unnecessary? I have not seen The Blind Side as of yet this year, but it certainly does not seem best picture worthy, especially compared to all of the cinephile satiating films from last year. And Up; does it really need to be nominated for both Best Motion Picture of the Year and Best Animated Feature Film of the Year? It seems quite redundant to this filmmaker, and as though either the Best Animated Feature category should be scrapped, the Best Motion Picture category should not include animated films (which would be ridiculously limiting, so it's not a legitimate possibility), or the nominees for Best Motion Picture should go back to the traditional five nominees, thus narrowing the field and preventing such strange instances of filler nominees merely there to take up space.

Also a problem of mine with awards in general and the Academy Awards is the hierarchy of awards as made apparent by the limiting of time the "lesser" award winners get to give a speech as compared to the winners in supposedly bigger categories. This show's the Academy's worry for time that the whole night takes up, sure, but all aspects of filmmaking are just about on an equal plane. All category winners should have equal time in their respective acceptance speeches. This roles into my other issue: the unnecessary parts of the evening. Do the song and dance numbers add anything to the night? We only get to see a clip of each film, audiences do not need to listen to a synchronized song. The academy also wanted to cut short Peter Gabriel's original song "Down to Earth" from WALL-E for last year's show to give more time to two Slumdog Millionaire songs, one of which ended up winning. Gabriel was smart enough to decline playing at all, realizing the Academy's control. The issue here is that the Academy wanted to cut short only one song, not all of the songs. It was not about being efficient with time, but getting rid of the song that did not require dozens of people performing at once. My biggest issue is the snubs in the In Memoriam montage. This is Hollywood's way of saying who is important and who is not. The most detestable example of this involves Heath Ledger, who, as many already are well aware, died after principal photography to The Dark Knight had completed (and ended up with an Oscar for his performance as the Joker). It is a touchy issue indeed, but Ledger died accidentally as a result of abuse of prescription medication. Actor Brad Renfro, whose supporting role in The Informers showed the actor's potential, died just one week prior to Ledger. Renfro died from accidental acute morphine/heroin intoxication. Ledger was featured in the In Memoriam montage. Renfro was not. That's Hollywood, I suppose.

My final reason for not liking awards and award shows goes back to the categories. Take a look at them for a moment. Does the average person watching the award show know the difference between sound mixing and sound editing? Probably not, but all the same, each category deserves it. This leads me to the exclusion of a category and entire cinematic art-form which has gone unnoticed for all too long: coloring. Both color timers and colorists should be recognized in some capacity, other than the pushed aside Technical Achievement Award. Color timers ensure color continuity from shot to shot and scene to scene, a rather important job that helps in maintaining the tone of a film. Colorists, on the other hand, are more the artists, enhancing color and altering saturation. Although they generally work in conjunction with directors and/or cinematographers, so do many of those other who are nominated for Academy Awards. Color is an invaluable asset to film, and is important from day one. Just look at this color script from one of the nominees from this year, Up. It is quite beautiful and lays out the plans for color for the entire film in over 120 pictures which were carried on to the final film. The film does not credit any colorists, as the work on colors was probably handled by the animators, but it does have a color timer credited, Terry Claborn, a man responsible for color timing for many of the more picturesque animated films from the past decade. Jim Passon also did color timing for the Pixar film and has been credited with color timing for other Academy Award nominated films from last year, including Inglourious Basterds and the flawed story-wise, yet beautiful Avatar. Stephen Nakamura is a supposed living legend among colorists, however, details on him are scant, yet he was the digital film colorist for The Hurt Locker, classics Kill Bill Volume 1 and Volume 2, and countless others. Most noteworthy is the recent film A Single Man, one that I have not seen as of yet, but fully intend to, as its trailer is quite mysterious, a fact supplemented by the fact that the coloring is absolutely astounding, something I hope is not only in the trailer but is featured in the full film. That trailer is found below. (And click the link below that to view it larger)

A Single Man trailer HD from Reda Jouahri on Vimeo.

That about wraps up all of my issues with awards and award shows. I hope to have made people aware of coloring and colorists, and the necessity to further recognize them.

Emerson

Review: Crash (No, Not That Crash)

2010-02-05T18:25:00.001-08:00

Crash was directed in 2004 by Paul Haggis. It won the prestigious Academy Award for best picture for its harrowing tale about race relations in a post-9/11 Los Angeles amongst folks who were brought together through unlikely circumstances of car crashes in the ever popular method of culminating plots. However, nearly a decade prior to Mr. Haggis's award-winning film, David Cronenberg released his Crash, a film containing all of the nitty-gritty Cronenberg themes that audiences worldwide have come to either love with a passion or detest with ardor. The film I will be reviewing here is Cronenberg's 1996 Crash, although I will concede that 2004's is one of my favorite films of all time. And so we begin:

David Cronenberg. Where to begin? The Canadian born director began with incredibly experimental film Stereo, an hour long look into telepathy with no diagetic sound, only voiceover. The film is mediocre, but hints at things to come for sure. He then graduated to the ever famous body horror that distinguished him from others at the time, pairing up with producer Ivan Reitman (who directed Ghostbusters), to make Shivers. That film seeks to explore the violent sexuality which overcomes an apartment building following a scientific accident of sorts originating from parasites. The director then moved on to Shivers, a horror film about disease and lust. Cronenberg also directed such famed features as The Brood, Scanners, Videodrome, The Dead Zone, The Fly, Dead Ringers, Naked Lunch, and M. Butterfly. A majority of those films are of the horror genre, save for M. Butterfly, a straight drama proving the director's flexibility. Following M. Butterfly, Cronenberg directed Crash, a clear culmination of his previous works, expressing all that which a body horror film represents, without some of the popular archetypes, which is quite an achievement for the auteur, as it proves his subversion from the very standards which he typified. The film is about the victims of a car crash and their subsequent sexual exploits, as their Masochistic tendencies become fleshed out. This relates to a common theme across all of David Cronenberg's body horror films, and even some of his that are not: The New Flesh. It is somewhat hard to convey what the new flesh is without losing the message of it, as I'm sure a good number of those who read this will have hardly heard of a Cronenberg flick, but it ultimately boils down to an addition to the body, a new organ or adaptation to the being itself which generally changes it in a violent and/or sexual way. It is somewhat disturbing in this regard, and, considering the film came out in 1996, it is hard to see how the MPAA did not imbue the film with the NC-17 kiss of death (that's our American ratings system for you!). The camerawork for the film is similar to other modern works in the director's filmography such as eXistenZ, but is much more neo-Noir than anything, and the related dark, gloomy color grading certainly adds to this tone. The score supplements this lighting, its jagged chords reflecting the eeriness of the characters. But this is where the film goes somewhat awry, and it is something that was wrong from the start. Although the characters are somewhat interesting, they are not developed very well. James Spader and Holly Hunter in the leading roles perform at their absolute best to amend this, however their efforts are futile, even in delivering weighty lines, which come off well, but are so heavily outweighed by the tonnage of weak dialogue. The editing also seeks to reckon this issue, but the characters largely remain static, albeit interesting, silhouettes that do not necessarily warrant over ninety minutes of screentime, a majority of which is spent ruthlessly copulating anyways. Crash may not have been executed all that well, but its ideas are clear enough and the effort is certainly there. Also, actor Elias Koteas delivers an astounding supporting performance as Vaughan, making the film worthy for a viewing. I must warn that the imagery in the film is intense, but it is justified quite well in combination with the new flesh and the rise of mechanical engineering that begins to apparently stranglehold society. Check out a trailer of Crash below.

Emerson

Review: The Ultimate Gift

2010-02-04T14:13:00.000-08:00

I had promised that I would review every film I saw from the inception of this blog ad infinitum. And so, it pains me to be forced to write the first review for this quint blog; this is not because I don't like writing, quite the contrary, but rather I don't like bad films. The Ultimate Gift is one of the single worst films I have ever seen. Forced to watch the flick for my Senior year Advanced Composition class, the film forces itself on audiences, invoking a pure disgust in this reviewer. Emotion upon emotion build up, which would be good if the writing, lighting, camerawork, editing, and acting weren't all not only dull, but prime examples of what not to do. Several of the performances are shaming and career lows for other wise great or at least mediocre actors, including Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine). What pained me most was the technical inaccuracy with which the film was made, completely avoiding continuity at times, and bearing a clear disregard for any sense of style. The lighting was arranged by a director of photography who seems to abandon all sensibilities, causing this viewer to truly be in awe of what is able to get made. The editor also holds on shots unnecessarily long, possibly for dramatic effect, but the one trick hat is hardly a trick at all, as the weak acting makes these long takes more painful than a blow to the kidneys. The film's religious messages are blatant, overbearing, and forceful, attempting to convert viewers to believe that all people can change when confronted with a sticky situation. (SPOILERS: They can't.) And while I may be a cynic, it is films like The Ultimate Gift which make me so, an adaptation selling itself as a family movie, made on the cheap, and packaged to your nearest vending machine for fast consumption. The tone is something which is completely lost on me, a movie about death and cancer over-peppered with jokes that only provide a reaction in my gut. This film should never have been made; it's as simple as that.

Emerson

Miramax Closes Its Doors

2010-01-28T13:40:00.000-08:00

It is always disheartening to see a once prosperous company go out of business. But this is no ordinary company. Hollywood has lost a very powerful asset, as Miramax Films is no more. While you may merely recognize the name, Miramax brought us lovely films such as Clerks, Reservoir Dogs, Sex, Lies and Videotape, Sling Blade, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, both Kill Bill Volumes 1 and 2, Full Frontal, The Lookout, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, and Fahrenheit 9/11, thus having single-handedly begun the careers of Steven Soderbergh, Kevin Smith and the View Askewverse, and Quentin Tarantino. I fear that the death of Miramax has much grander implications for the film industry and even other industries than we can expect.

A bit of history: brothers Harvey and Bob Weinstein began Miramax in 1979 together as a way to get films made that other studios would not, generally independent films at first, then branching out. Disney bought Miramax in 1993. The brothers left the company in 2005, founding The Weinstein Company, one of the companies that brought us Inglourious Basterds(my review may be found here). Largely considered the "adult" subsidiary of Disney, the studio was often an example of one of the few things Disney was not mucking up. But now the Mouse House has shut down the iconic studio, turning it into a legend of yesteryear. The studio's several currently in development projects may remain in limbo for a while, either being cancelled or continuing on through some other means. The problem, however, does not lie in the near future, rather in the far off future.

The heavy ramifications of the death of the studio that gave birth to the mainstream indies that flourished throughout the '90s and onward are that (1) the independent film is effectively dead. Sure Sundance is still here, but now distribution and production will be much more difficult for directors on the rise, causing more difficulties accessing audiences both domestically and globally. Miramax was a force to be reckoned with in it's heyday, which brings me to my other point, (2) that Disney does not know how to handle its subsidiaries. Disney is unable to find the balance between art and commercialism, as evidenced by their musical division. Miramax was a great company, but movie marketing was not handled very well, particularly with recent films that were not overseen by the Weinstein brother, such as Adventureland and Extract, both flops helmed by excellent comedy directors. The former was, in fact, one of my favorite films of last year, however, it was marketed as an entirely different film, thus preventing the word of mouth that could help such a film and causing sizable drops from week to week (boxofficemojo.com). What is the significance of this? Disney owns Marvel Entertainment. Marvel Entertainment is an empire in and of itself, even without considering it is owned by the Walt Disney Company. The success of Marvel Studios, the division responsible for the superhero films Iron Man and the most recent incarnation of The Incredible Hulk, as well as the upcoming Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers, with possible sequels for each and spin-offs galore, including a Nick Fury film and Edgar Wright's Ant-Man, is largely dependent upon the success of each individual movie. If Cap fails, we will more than likely not see much more of the Avengers. The same goes for the Norse deity. And you can bet that Disney will let it all go downhill from there if there is too much effort required to salvage a dwindling adopted child. Because of this, Disney will also let the comics division fail, which would lead to the collapse of Marvel, superhero films in general, and also probably DC Comics, as well as their films.

I really do hope that I am wrong, however, history is known to repeat itself. Studios shut down all too often; let's hope Disney has learned from its mistakes made with Miramax.

Emerson

I Love "I Love Sarah Jane"

2010-01-26T15:04:00.000-08:00

NEVER FEAR, NO SPOILERS HERE
Sundance film festival was started by actor Robert Redford (named for his character in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid). Since the festival's inception, it has been a channel for the best new independent filmmakers. This year's festival is underway, and one of the films receiving an overwhelming amount of positive response is "Hesher." The director of Hesher, Spencer Susser, made the short film "I Love Sarah Jane," which was one of Sundance's many prestigious short films of 2008.

I Love Sarah Jane is an exercise in transcendence, defying standards while subtly creating new ones. The volatile cocktail of genres the short creates, while adding up some impressive special effects on a limited budget, add to create an incredibly engaging twelve minute video. Susser has created a story, which he co-wrote, that is in no need of flashbacks or any shoddy writing cheats that would aid in building a back story. The director rather creates a world on its own, as atmospheric as any of its type, which is both believable and intriguing. And while questions certainly arise regarding both the past and future of these characters, it is certainly apparent that this was the intention and that this may be left up to the viewer, ultimately dividing audiences into the classic camps of romantic versus realist. Some performances are a bit dull, with both the cinematography and coloring aid in the story's telling enough to forgive any problems. The story itself is both a classic sort, while deviating from the cliche to the point of going beyond recognition. I also felt a large part of the Oz culture creeping in through the film despite it never being mentioned explicity, as the film was made in Australia. Some of the shots in the film are horrifyingly beautiful, something that truly stirred up a reaction in myself. It is ultimately "Sarah Jane"'s ability to evoke while still providing enjoyable camp fair that makes it such a worthy short. Also, pardon the ambiguity of this review, however I have a stringent no spoiler policy; but trust you to heed my cinematic advice.

"I Love Sarah Jane" may be found below in its entirety. I beg of you to take 12 measly minutes out of your day and to spend it on something which will indeed be worth your while.

I Love Sarah Jane from Qoob TV on Vimeo.

Emerson

FADE IN:

2010-01-19T15:56:00.000-08:00

INT. LIVING ROOM - NIGHT

A 17 year old boy sits, typing upon his laptop, thinking of witticisms he's picked up throughout the ages, but nothing sticks for this new endeavor. He is EMERSON, the Movie Maven, cinephile extraordinaire, celluloid prodigy, et cetera ad infinitum.

Enter FILMSTOCKADE, a brand spanking new blog brought to you by the film freak himself.

Hi, all! If you've stumbled upon this blog and were looking for some kind of nitrate armory, then I apologize. To all the cineastes, or even casual enthusiasts, then welcome to my domain, filmstockade. My name is Emerson, and film has been all I am for several years. This blog will seek to review and analyze film, as well as provide industry news and insights occasionally. I am a prolific film viewer, having seen over 250 films in 2009 alone, and planning for more this year. Filmstockade is to be my outlet, exposing the inner workings of the mind of a true film junkie's opinion on the state of Hollywood. I'll take plenty of requests for reviews and analysis pieces, as well as coverage of news, if you care to know my opinion. I plan on reviewing and/or analyzing every film I see from now on, as well as updating the process of production, as I go through attempts at entering the illustrious world of motion pictures. Thank you and stay tuned!